Harrah’s Interactive Entertainment, Inc. (HIE), a subsidiary of Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc., has launched its much-anticipated online casino branded Caesars Casino Online exclusively available to UK residents. The new site will offer a Las Vegas casino experience with a full complement of casino games including slots, roulette, blackjack and baccarat powered by software from Gamesys.

The new browser-based, no-download online gaming product is available in both free-to-play and real money options.

“Clearly the famed Caesars brand holds a lot of cache and we are excited to bring the iconic Las Vegas landmark to life in the online gaming space,” said HIE CEO Mitch Garber. “After successfully launching Caesars Bingo with our partner Gamesys earlier in the year, it was the logical next step to bring a suite of casino game offerings to the UK marketplace.”

Prizes, jackpots, bonuses and promotions will all be offered on the new site, including trips to the famed Empire Casino in London, and all-expenses paid trips to the iconic Caesars Palace in Las Vegas.

“Harrah’s and Gamesys is a dream relationship,” Gamesys founder and CEO Noel Hayden said of the launch. “Caesars is one of the most prestigious and famous brands in Las Vegas and Gamesys is well known for its innovative technology and games. We’re understandably extremely happy to be launching one of the UK’s most exciting internet casino sites so shortly after we were selected to launch a bingo product for Harrah’s.”

The Macau gambling market continued its seemingly unstoppable rise in September 2010, recording revenues of 15.3 billion patacas (around $1.9 billion) – 39.8% up on the corresponding period last year, reports the Macau Gaming Inspection and Coordination Bureau.

The figure fell short of July’s 70% phenomenal year-over-year increase, but the numbers are still strong and appealing to American investors weary of low performance in the US, said Deutsche Bank analyst Chris Worenka.

Macau became the world’s premier gambling hub by revenue in 2006, overtaking Las Vegas and continuing to widen the performance gap in subsequent years.

Denmark’s slow march toward the abandonment of its state monopoly on internet gambling is set to experience further delays, according to a Ladbrokes executive, and Betsson’s chief executive is undecided on whether the Swedish company will apply for a licence.

Back in July this year, the Danes started accepting licence applications after earlier agreeing under pressure from the European Commission to some liberalisation.

The snag was that applicants had to cease all activity in the market for a six month period until the licenses became effective, originally estimated to take place around January 2011. This ‘black period’ condition was widely interpreted as an attempt to create a protective cushion around state monopoly Danske Spil, giving it a significant advantage over its eventual competitors.

Licenses cannot be issued until the EC has completed a review of the draft law liberalising the market, which includes provisions for ISP and financial blocking of unlicensed operators.

Assuming there are no complications, a tentative date of October 11 has been set down for the issue of licenses, but interested parties fear that the Danes may impose the ‘black period’ from that date, further prolonging their exclusion from the action.

There has apparently been no shortage of licence applications, and last week a well informed Ladbrokes executive opined that the black period could be extended further, perhaps as far as the second quarter of 2011, a delay justified by the licensing process.

This week Betsson chief executive Pontus Lindwall revealed that his company is unhappy with the taxation aspects and the black period, and remains undecided on whether to seek a licence.

He said that he additionally saw no reason for the Danish proposal that lottery, horse betting, bingo, keno and scratch cards should remain the sole prerogative of Danske Spil.

In the meantime he has complained to the European Commission on grounds that the Danish approach contravenes European Union law.

Unconfirmed reports suggest that the Danes want all the advantages; there are indications that the Danish Gambling Board wants to let Danish-licensed companies access the player equity available in international markets, although competitors in those markets cannot operate in Denmark unless they have a local licence.

Generating plenty of heat on player message boards at present is the sad tale of a German player who is still struggling to be paid out on an online progressive jackpot, worth €167,500, that he hit in August 2008.

Just one of several disturbing aspects of the affair is the manner in which Malta’s regulator LGA is alleged to have handled the complaint. After a protracted wait on the regulator’s decision, the player was dumbfounded to learn that the online casino in the dispute, GVC Holdings subsidiary Casino Club, could apparently set aside its obligation to pay due to a Malta law that gambling debts are unenforceable!

The surreal dichotomy of a state-sanctioned regulatory regime which is effectively rendered powerless to intervene due to that same state’s own laws has boggled the minds of many players, and not in a good way.

After all, statistics made public by the Malta Minister of Finance earlier this year show that the island nation makes tens of millions of Euro annually from licensing and supposedly regulating online gambling sites! The sheer irony is inescapable, and the loophole could leave the door open to questionable conduct.

The player claims that he has been an active gambler at Casino Club from 2003 until his account was shut down after his big win in the third quarter of 2008, and that his action and deposits have never been questioned or challenged by casino staff. Until the big win, that is.

He claims that his account was in good standing following a recent deposit of €25,000, boosted by a casino-granted bonus of €5,000. On his 20th spin on the Jackpot Poker progressive he hit the sort of jackpot gamblers dream of – €167,500.

After first suggesting to him that more wins could be achieved if he played on with his windfall, casino staff then advised him two weeks later that his account had been locked for a security check, and he simultaneously discovered that his new-found wealth had been taken back by the operator.

Accusations that he had funded his lucky gamble on the progressive with money he had allegedly first earned illegally on Casino Club’s blackjack offering were then made to justify disallowing the progressive win. Some time later the player lodged a complaint with the LGA.

The regulator asked for evidence from Casino Club, which the casino claims it supplied.

After a further delay whilst the regulator digested the material, the player was given the bad news that his issue was ‘resolved’ because the casino had exploited a legal loophole that gambling debts are unenforceable under Malta law. Apparently the regulator did not comment on the real merits or otherwise of the case.

German lawyers advised the player that he would have to contest the issue in the Malta courts, a process likely to take time and money, but which would presumably require the casino to prove its allegations and show why it had only decided that the player was undesirable when a large amount of money was involved.

The affair has been the subject of intense debate and speculation on gambling message boards ever since.

From the online casino’s perspective, the incident is not quite as straight forward. It has claimed, so far without public substantiation, that the German player was deprived of his winnings because he was suspected of being involved in a two person ‘gambling ring’ and was guilty of unspecified fraud, using robot software, multi-accounting, collusion and bonus abuse – a formidable mix of accusations covering almost every serious offence an internet player can commit.

A Casino Club spokesman claimed that the player had been under security surveillance for some time to see what he was up to; that the casino was perfectly justified in taking the action that it had; that the LGA had been supplied with full details; and that the finding had been in favour of the casino.

A parallel debate regarding funds involved in the disallowed progressive had meantime developed, with players wanting to know why the disqualified win had not been put back in the progressive jackpot, as this was funded by a percentage of player bets and was consequently not company money.

After first assuring players that Casino Club was part of a financially sound group of integrity and that the funds were therefore safe, a casino spokesman last week made a commitment to return the disqualified funds to the jackpot, explaining that the money had been held pending a resolution of the complaint (the complaint was allegedly finalised early in 2010, according to the player – ed.)

With the heat rising on this long-running issue and an apparently ludicrous situation that suggests that Malta licensees can play the ‘unenforceable gambling debt’ card, Casino Club declined an InfoPowa invitation to comment after considering its position for several days.

However, a company spokesman became active on the Casinomeister.com message board, putting forward an offer to ask the LGA for a review and committing to returning the €167,500 to the progressive jackpot.

Sceptics have been quick to point out that these circumstances now present the regulator with something of a dilemma, if it is shown that it has accepted the ‘unenforceable gambling debt’ loophole as a valid argument.

On the one hand, the LGA has been appointed to license and regulate the operations of Malta-registered operators, but it would seem to be constrained from effectively doing so by a legal loophole that enables those same operators to evade their obligations to pay out on a win. Hardly an endorsement for fair and safe online gambling.

Whether the player could seek justice in a Malta civil court on the grounds of a contractual relationship through the casino’s T&C’s is unclear. If the casino responded to such a challenge by presenting its accusations of foul play by the gambler, it would presumably have to detail and adduce proof of those allegations to the satisfaction of an independent judge.

The LGA has thus far remained aloof from the controversy.

Viktor Blom, the young Swedish internet high stakes player whom many believe is the famed online high roller (and big loser) Isildur1, took charge in Saturday’s day 2 action at the World Series of Poker Europe Main Event in London.

Rapidly overhauling the chip leader at the start of the day, James Mitchell, and respected international ace Phil Ivey who first took it away from Mitchell, Blom powered his way through a field of 195 Day 2 starters to end on 443,000, just ahead of nearest rivals Bojan Gledovic from Serbia on 442,300 and Darren Woods (372,500).

Only 69 of the 195 Day 2 starters survived the competition and will again gather on Day 3 to do battle once more; the organisers hope to bring the field down to only 27 by the end of Day 3.

346 hopefuls entered for the £10,000 buy-in event, generating a £3,460,000 prize pool with £830,401 set aside for the main event winner, and the money bubble scheduled to pop at elimination 37.

There were three WSOP 2010 final tablers active throughout the day in John Racener, John Dolan and Filippo Candio – Racener and Candio did not make it to Day 3.

Potent Day 2 survivors who will face Blom on Day 3 include Andrew Pantling (344,000), Phil Ivey (289,300) and Arnaud Mattern (280,900), along with formidable players like Yevgeniy Timoshenko, Huck Seed, Roland de Wolfe, Daniel Negreanu, Hoyt Corkins, Freddy Deeb, Greg Mueller, JP Kelly, Nick Schulman, Nicolas Levi, Barry Greenstein and Dan Shak.

Less fortunate, in that they busted out without making the money bubble, were aces like Eric Baldwin, Chris Moorman, Allen Cunningham, J.C. Tran, Leo Margets, Liv Boeree, Chris Ferguson, Jason MercierJohn Juanda, Barry Shulman, Carlos Mortensen, Praz Bansi, Phil Laak and girl friend Jennifer Tilly, Kathy Liebert and Antonio Esfandiari.