Betting in the US : Legal states to bet ?

It has taken over two decades for sports betting to become legitimate in the USA. Lawmakers have been pushing to make this practice legal through the Supreme Court. Read on to find out the states that have made this practice legal, forbidden betting areas and the future plans of betting in this powerful nation. Legal states to bet Content 1 Legal states to bet

Legal states to bet 2 Forbidden betting states

Forbidden betting states 3 Future of sports betting 3.1 Negative aspects of sports betting 3.1.1 Betting scams 3.1.2 Fixed matches

Future of sports betting 4 Positive aspects of sports betting 4.1 Revenue boost

Positive aspects of sports betting There was a ban on sports betting in the USA since 1992 till earlier this year (2018). Permission by the Supreme Court was granted to a few states for a start. This was through the help of the legislators. Today, American citizens in some states have the honour of cheering on favourite teams while awaiting to bag large sums of money through bets. Sports betting was first made legitimate in the state of Nevada. Do you happen to live here? If you are a sports fun I bet you have been receiving rewards that come with this practice. There are other states that have earlier in the year 2018 had the permission of the Supreme Court to bet. They include Delaware, state of Montana and Oregon. Gambling centres like the city of Atlanta together with the park of Monmouth are already active for sports lovers to place bets and win lump sums of money. So if you love watching horses race, visit these two centres and you are sure to bag some dollars thanks to the legalisation of this practice. There are other six states that have recently got permission to place sports bet. They include Lowa, City of New York, West Virginia, Mississippi, Pennsylvania and Connecticut. Do you reside in any of these states? Well, rush into any gambling spot and start earning money as soon as possible. Forbidden betting states There are thirteen cities and states in the USA that have not yet received the consent of the Supreme Court to bet though plans are underway to award citizens their betting rights. They include Rhode Island, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Michigan, Missouri, Maryland, Massachusetts, California, Kentucky, Minnesota, State of Illinois, Indiana and Kansas City. If you happen to live in any of these great cities do not lose hope because your legislators are fighting hard to make this practice legitimate for you. When the right time comes and permission is granted, you will have the honour of not only watching favourite teams play but place bets and look forward to winning millions of dollars. Future of sports betting Research was earlier conducted about the benefits and harms of this practice to the American nation. This was established through an analysis of the United Kingdom sports betting industry. The US discovered several pros and cons that revolved around this practice, they need to position themselves for promotions programs such as bet365 usa bonus code and the measures to consider once this practice has been legalised so as not to realise an economic downfall. Negative aspects of sports betting Gambling involves surrendering your hard earned money and willing to take risks that come with the practice. The USA have not been willing to make this practice legitimate for a very long time because of the harms that are associated with betting. They include: Betting scams This is likely to happen through the social media accounts of some crafty characters. The USA established that through the use of ghost accounts, the American citizens were likely to be duped of their hard earned money through the advertisement of games that end up not being played. If your state has already received the permission to legally bet, it is important to register with betting firms that are recognized on a global level so as not to fall prey to these kinds of scams. Fixed matches Researchers fear that there is a possibility of fixing certain matches to suit the expectations of betting firms. Before giving the state of Nevada betting rights, The USA government adopted the best way of dealing with this scam. This is through hiring qualified sports analysts and paying players well and in good time. So if you were worried about this kind of fraud, fear not because your nation has found the best way of protecting your betting rights. Positive aspects of sports betting Revenue boost Research has indicated that the legalisation of betting will boost the American economy to greater heights. Betting firms pay taxes of up to fifteen percent on a monthly basis. Supposing there are a thousand registered betting firms that operate in this great nation, how much revenue do you think the American government will wait to collect on a yearly basis? I would say millions of dollars. So as an American Citizen your economic future is in good hands once this practice is legalised in the entire nation. After a careful research, you as an American citizen are aware about the states that have been granted the permission to bet. Secondly, you are able to identify cities and states that have not yet received consent of the Supreme Court to engage in this practice. Finally you know the future plans of this practice to the economy of your state and how to go about evading fraudsters. So take your time to enjoy watching your favourite team play and bet responsibly.

The Big Society: Back, and more meaningful than ever!

Regular readers will know I am possibly the world’s biggest fan of the (real) concept behind the Big Society, and also that I have always been a bit disappointed that 1) it was allowed to become portrayed as just being about volunteering and 2) the Tories stopped talking about it. However on the plus side, it’s absolutely one of the policies that they have had enormous success with but don’t talk about much, which I suppose if you have to choose is the best way for it to be. So today’s announcement about 3 days a year for employees in large companies and for public sector workers to participate in the Big Society is great. What does it mean in practice? It means that 15 million people will do something different. It means that 15 million people will talk to each other outside their normal context. And it means that 15 million people will be able to choose what they put their efforts into. Out of this are likely to grow some extraordinary things. I’ve recently been working on some tech and innovation stuff, and one of the most powerful and encouraging things I’ve noticed has been that random conversations produce innovation of all sorts. Another is just how positive and front-footed people are – much more so than in politics, where so often we say, “oh that won’t work” and get all snooty about other people’s ideas. But even if people don’t start something different, they will improve what exists already. They will be part of personalising services in schools and healthcare; they will be part of making sure that the services they engage with actually deliver what people want; they will link together inputs and outcomes far better than any government statistics could ever hope to, and they will hugely strengthen the bonds in their communities. I wrote a piece two and a half years ago about the Big Society which I think has stood the test of time. My near-conclusion was this: Actually, my favourite rationale for the Big Society isn’t about the big philosophical picture at all. It’s that people are overwhelmingly sceptical about anything that any government does. They don’t believe politicians. They don’t trust them. They don’t like them. And therefore (so they say) anything that takes power away from them is a great thing. So the Big Society really means that politicians don’t control things any more, because people do. They can choose the right school for their child. They can choose their GP, their consultant, their hospital. They can choose whether they want to volunteer in their own community, or take advantage of others’ work (which is fine – otherwise why bother encouraging volunteers in the first place! If a service is not used it will not survive). They can choose how far they want to get involved in all sorts of things – from getting together to show that the demand is there for superfast broadband, to what priorities their police focus on, to what kind of bin service they want, to planting some flowers in their street, to how they run their businesses, to using social enterprises for their day to day needs… And that, in the end, is what this announcement is about. It’s giving individuals with knowledge and expertise the freedom to come together to innovate and connect. And what they will do with that power is awesomely full of potential to make all of our lives better. Source

Another reason to vote Conservative: troubled families, the state and One Nation

This is another in our regular series of things the Conservatives have delivered in office that are great but which they don’t talk about enough… In Dundee in 1996*, the Family Intervention Project took the hugely brave step of looking at evidence (from the US) and trying something new. Instead of managing decline and dealing with problems after they’d occurred – usually entailing punishment or sanctions of some sort – it brought together all the various bits of the state which dealt with problems in people’s lives to try and figure out what was working, what wasn’t, and how to fix those problems rather than just damping them down to a more or less manageable level. Over the next 15 years, various pledges were made to try and replicate that successful intervention model but sadly not much progress was really made and an ever-greater gap opened up between those with real and complicated problems and the state which is supposed to help and enable us to succeed. So when the Coalition announced that they were committed to a renewed Troubled Families Programme that would help 120,000 families across the UK by knitting together a single point of contact, local services of all flavours and committed and personalised support, people were naturally a little skeptical. And yet. That programme has worked, with meaningful changes for the better in those individuals’ lives, as well as long-term and sustainable savings in the cost of services they use. There are two hugely significant aspects to this. The first – more political – is the recognition that the state can and should deliver personalised, coherent, responsive support to its citizens, and that that is – in and of itself – desirable and can be successful. Conservatives have often failed to explain that we do believe in the state, that we believe in its capacity to deliver and its capacity to enable individuals to live better lives, and that we understand that we can and should use the state’s muscle to help people. (As an aside, there’s a nice section in a recent James Forsyth interview with George Osborne on this). If One Nation Conservatism is about anything, it is this: that those who need help should get the best we can give, to enable them to eventually move towards being the ones who can give help as well. It’s the same argument we should have made, for example, in the 1980s in mining and industrial communities: if people are left behind, we can help, we know what works, and we must help because it enables us all to be stronger and more successful as a result. The second is personally more important to the people involved: that they have had the necessary support to improve their lives. That their children are in school, that they are getting medical help where needed, that they are being supported to create better lives for themselves, that where they can, they are in work – these are all good, Conservative values. It shows what can be achieved through building practical, committed, trusting relationships that – yes – ask a lot of participants but also frees them to succeed rather than keeps them in an endless cycle of managed failure. The programme has been so successful for those 120,000 families that it will be extended to another 400,000 through to 2020. This is a lasting and significant improvement both in those families’ lives and in the way that the state approaches failure, and we should be shouting from the rooftops about it. * Which /clears throat/, no party political point-scoring from me obviously but a) is in Scotland and b) was when the Tories were in government… source : PlyMouthWhalers.com

(Only) Three Reasons to Vote Conservative

The polls say the election’s outcome is up in the air, but one thing is clear – the Tories are close to polling better than the 36.1% share of the vote won in 2010. No mean feat given the perils and challenges of five years in office. Of course there have been a few facepalm moments (ask me after May and I’ll give you my list) but overall David Cameron’s government has been one of innovation and reform – not a bad record when the books left by Labour offered little room to breathe. That I’ll be voting for the Tories on May 7th is hardly a revelation given that I stood for council on the blue ticket last May, enjoyed (rather than endured) my first party conference a couple of years ago and have traipsed off to all sorts of by-elections around the country. But forget the slightly tame election promises and #LongTermEconomicPlan – here are three concrete reasons why I’ll be out pounding the pavements for the Tories in the run-up to May 7th – and why you should consider voting for the Conservatives too. Apprenticeships It is the Conservatives who are the party of opportunity – not Labour – and if you want proof of that just look at the how we’ve revitalised apprenticeships. I’m not sure whether it’s healthy to have a favourite graph, but here’s mine. Note how women have been doing better under the Conservatives then under Labour. In 2010 the Conservatives committed to creating 400,000 apprenticeships. Here we are five years on and we’ve created 2,000,000 apprentices. In comparison Labour’s idea of opportunity was telling everyone to go to university: ‘why do an apprenticeship when you can have a degree?’ This was a betrayal of the idea that some people might actually be able to enter the workforce and secure skilled, well-paid employment by in-work training, paid for by the employer. And note how quickly they’ve forgotten their disgraceful record on apprenticeships: Guaranteed with a Labour govt → 80,000 more high quality apprenticeships so every school leaver with the grades has the chance to get on. — The Labour Party (@UKLabour) February 17, 2015 Wow, 80,000 apprentices. That’s 80% fewer than the Tories promised in 2010, and 4% of the apprentices created during the five years of this Tory government. Apprenticeships were a massive part of Britain when we made things and exported to the world, but cruelly Blair and Brown saw them simply in the context of their inept class war. Besides, who needs skilled British workers when you’re one of three EU countries not to put in place freedom-of-labour controls when the EU expanded eastwards? Much easier to bring over the cream of the Accession States’ workforce. David Cameron’s government has done the hard work of rebuilding apprenticeships, which are so important in the fight to upskill our workforce, improve productivity – and transform people’s lives. https://amp.twimg.com/v/88429399-7522-4b19-8277-ded59079f56f Public Transport Like most people in the South East travelling on the railways and underground is a big part of my life, and the good news is that this government has poured enormous amounts of money into future-proofing the transport network. Labour electrified 13 miles of railway under Blair and Brown. One poxy mile per year in government. In comparison we’ve just about finished electrifying the entire railway from London to Wales in five years. Work on Crossrail (London’s new East-West underground line) is on target for completion in 2018, by which point Crossrail 2 will be well underway – much to the relief of Northern Line commuters. George Osborne was under pressure to cancel these projects, but he recognised how vital it was to have transport that was worthy of London’s position as one of the world’s great cities. Likewise hundreds of railway platforms across the country have been lengthened to accommodate longer trains that are being brought into service – why we’re not shouting about this I have no idea. And an enormous overhaul of railways in the North-West is being delivered – new electric trains through Manchester on the new Ordsall viaduct, with big service improvements – like Chester to Manchester in under 40 minutes (over an hour at present). Labour likes to think the North is its home turf, but what did they do for commuters in Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Preston, and so on? The Conservatives have made the investment that is helping increase the reliability and capacity of the railways, and helping more people get a seat in the morning. Leadership Perhaps the most contentious of the three points, but I really do think David Cameron has shown genuine leadership as Prime Minister in the past five years. He has held together a government with the Liberal Democrats, our most despised opponents. I was on the officer team of a rock solid Tory Association outside the M25 for much of this parliament, and vividly recall our Chairman announcing his defection to UKIP as the first item on our AGM – so I have some insight into how difficult his position must have been. Yet look at the alternatives. Wind up the government half way though? We’d have been slaughtered in the polls. Avoid addressing gay marriage? Labour would have introduced it from the opposition benches and caused all sorts of havoc. Cameron didn’t bow to UKIP’s agenda, the wisdom of which can be seen as the latter’s credibility disintegrates in the run-up to May 7th. It’s easy to bag Ed Miliband, but has he demonstrated the qualities needed to lead a government as Leader of the Opposition? I – and seemingly many others – think not. And Clegg’s lot has found coalition politics to be as comfortable as snuggling up to a boa constrictor, with single figure poll ratings since 2011. This May will see seats turning blue that have been yellow for decades. There’s also the issue of the European Union referendum. I’ve always felt our EU membership is like an unhappy marriage: we need to try counselling before we divorce, and that’s what Cameron’s renegotiation is all about. Let’s see how serious Brussels is about changing. The EU is a political construction for wealth redistribution and regulation generation completely at odds with European project’s founding aim of building peace through economic activity, and I’d almost certainly vote to leave. But I want a proper national debate before any decision, and my gut instinct says that rushing a referendum makes a vote to stay in more likely – and then where will we be? Confirmed members of an EU that has little incentive to reform. So the Prime Minister is spot on: 2017 is the right date to hold the referendum. Perhaps David Cameron will never be held in the same affection as our party’s great leaders, but I can’t imagine he’s particularly bothered. What I imagine he does worry about is getting Britain heading in the right direction after the precarious position that Labour left us in 2010 – and he’s done a pretty good job of that. — Which brings me back to my starting point. Back in the depths of 2013 I bet a particularly recalcitrant district councillor £20 that we’d be ahead in the polls in the run-up to the general election – and here we are, ahead in the polls and ready for the heat of the final weeks before polling day. Apprenticeships, transport and leadership are small fry in the bigger picture of rescuing the nation’s economy. But they’re indicative of a government that has taken tough decisions, improved people’s lives, and put us on the right course for the years ahead. That’s a record I’m proud to campaign on – and one that appeals to the heart as much as the head.

Their policy on children of immigrants shows that UKIP’s mask is slipping.

Nigel Farage is getting desperate with only a few weeks to go until the election. And with that desperation, his mask is beginning to slip. In the past few weeks, UKIP have rolled out a series of increasingly nasty policies, with the goal of shoring up their campaign from falling poll ratings. And these vindictive new policies already seem to be splitting UKIP down the middle. There’s a fair bit of competition for this honour, but undoubtedly UKIP’s vilest policy yet was Farage’s idea that the children of immigrants shouldn’t be allowed to attend state schools for 5 years after their parents enter the country. According to Farage, “they would bering dependants… after a period of time.” It’s a policy of the basest kind. Not only is it morally objectionable, with the explicit aim of splitting families up and denigrating immigrants as second class citizens, it’s also both unworkable and bad for the country. Is Farage really advocating that the children of immigrants should have no education at all, other than home schooling or expensive private education? It’s a recipe for ghettoisation and would work directly against integration of second generation immigrants into society. How is the NHS, for example, supposed to attract a skilled Doctor or surgeon from overseas if they thought that they would have to pay expensive private school fees on top of this, when the average price of a private school is about ￡13,000 a year. The UKIP leader has claimed that if he were to take a job in the US, he would have to pay for the education of his children. Steve Peers of British Influence has shown that claim to be utterly untrue. It’s against the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and there’s no evidence at all that this kind of policy exists in the USA or any other Western country. If we are to take UKIP figures at face value, you would have to assume that they would be fighting like ferrets in a sack about this policy. Take Douglas Carswell – who, despite his unwise choice of party remains a fascinating, tolerant, thought-provoking figure. In his acceptance speech in Clacton, he said that UKIP should be a “party for all Britons, first and second generation as much as every other.” Last week he said that the British economy should “attract the brightest and best” from around the world.” It’s almost impossible to reconcile this with Farage’s desire to strip the basic right of education away from the children of immigrants. It’s quite right that steps are being taken to control immigration, which impacts on public services and pushes down the wages of the low paid. That’s why the government is right not to change it’s immigration target. But it’s one thing to say, rightly, that we should control immigration and quite another to push forward a mean, vindictive and unworkable policy such as the one Farage is proposing. The idea that the children of immigrants should be barred from education would split up families and is a policy devoid of human decency. It’s a reminder, if one were needed, of why we should be fighting UKIP hard across the country to make sure that they don’t gain a foothold in the next election. The alternative is unthinkable.

Futurists, sunshine and making the choice to have control of your sunny future