The irony and joke of leagues asking for a bit of the sports betting action, now

[LemonSoupKid]

Have you guys seen these appeals by Silver or Manfred to get such things as "integrity fees"? What does betting on games have to do with you, something you've paid lawyers years for in order to keep down or quash. You just provide a product, and it gets great cable deals, advertisements, sells tickets, merchandises, etc. What others do as a sideshow on their time has nothing to do with you.

Now you want some of the action when you realize the jig is up? Why would any state even consider this? It's an embarrassment and a joke that these clowns (though I'm not surprised) are trying to do this.

As a measure of good will, why don't you first build your own stadiums. Or better yet, start first by paying back the tax payer for building it for you.

I find this insulting. I'd tell Silver or Manfred to go you know what

[horses4courses]

A bit of the action?

I hear the number 1% being mentioned.
That would be around 33% of theoretical profit.
Before any government take out.

There is much negotiating to be done
before any new legal betting takes place.

[Valuist]

About 20% of the profit, but still ridiculous.

Nothing more than a money grab from a couple of parasites. Adam Silver should thank God for gambling; how many people would watch that God awful 82 game regular season if not for gambling?

[cj]

The leagues have every right to make money since they are the ones putting on the show. How much is what is up for debate.

[thaskalos]

The leagues will get their money...and so will the bookmakers. The bettors have enough money to cover all the "costs of doing business". Does anybody really think that the impending "legalized sports betting" will be a 110-100 wagering proposition? It will be 115-100 at the MINIMUM.

[LemonSoupKid]

The leagues have every right to make money since they are the ones putting on the show. How much is what is up for debate.

No they don't, otherwise they wouldn't be asking (they'd be doing) and for that matter, in a childish and horribly unconvincing way.

They have their leagues and make/pay their large sums due to the demand for their product via tickets, marketing, merchandise, etc. They sued for years to NOT allow gambling and now they should get some of the action because they lost the ability to stop others from something they knew they couldn't ever get?

And the obvious secret (as you should know) why they can't get it is because by definition, when you have a pro sports league, you can't make money on gambling as the sole sponsor or proprietor. Due to integrity it would never make sense, and is an industry fact, thus why you can only hope that others will listen to your insulting arguments about "integrity fees" or royalties when you have absolutely no right or legal backing to get them. Shouldn't you already be making sure your game has integrity? It's laughable.

What I do with someone else regarding your game has nothing to do with you except that you have this illusion that you should be involved. But you shouldn't and you can't, as I have shown. What's more, gambling actually helps you, you greedy bastards, by increasing excitement and fanfare.

I've lost a lot of respect for this totally lame cash grab by NBA and MLB. They should and will get precisely ZERO of the action, unless the states that soon to go bust by adopting this are that corrupt, or that stupid.

[LemonSoupKid]

The leagues will get their money...and so will the bookmakers. The bettors have enough money to cover all the "costs of doing business". Does anybody really think that the impending "legalized sports betting" will be a 110-100 wagering proposition? It will be 115-100 at the MINIMUM.

The States will almost instantly fail if they do that then.

With that increase in edge AND the fact that bets are tracked and you are taxed (unlike with locals) who would ever play a -115 or higher average wager?

I think they'll try this but soon see you get very little profit, if any.

[jay68802]

With that increase in edge AND the fact that bets are tracked and you are taxed (unlike with locals) who would ever play a -115 or higher average wager?

Handicapper's?:)

[Valuist]

Handicapper's?:)

Not for very long. The offshores will continue to flourish.

The only ones who would bet minus 120 are those who don't know the math involved.

Minus 120 sides/totals is NOT a beatable game.

[thaskalos]

Not for very long. The offshores will continue to flourish.

The only ones who would bet minus 120 are those who don't know the math involved.

Minus 120 sides/totals is NOT a beatable game.

Since when has the state shown an interest in offering "beatable games"?

[horses4courses]

About 20% of the profit, but still ridiculous.

Nothing more than a money grab from a couple of parasites. Adam Silver should thank God for gambling; how many people would watch that God awful 82 game regular season if not for gambling?


How do you figure 20%?
Theoretical hold on sports wagering is not much over 3%.

[horses4courses]

The offshores will continue to flourish.

I agree with that - at least in the short run.
The main reason will be phone and online wagering.
Solely bricks and mortar operations will not cut it.

[oughtoh]

So if MLB takes money from gambling bets, then Pete Rose should go into the HOF

[jay68802]

So if MLB takes money from gambling bets, then Pete Rose should go into the HOF

:lol:

[jay68802]

Not for very long. The offshores will continue to flourish.

The only ones who would bet minus 120 are those who don't know the math involved.

Minus 120 sides/totals is NOT a beatable game.

My point is that handicappers are forced to bet into 20% + take out pools and still bet. Professional sports wants a cut of the $? Just like tracks want to get a cut of casino money. And if a track gets sports wagering, the local HBPA will want a cut of the $ also. Every time the $ get divided up, the bettor is going to be the one that pays for it.

[stuball]

and the bettors get the shaft again

[Valuist]

How do you figure 20%?
Theoretical hold on sports wagering is not much over 3%.

That was a specific number I heard quoted by a sportsbook director that was on VSIN.

[Valuist]

Since when has the state shown an interest in offering "beatable games"?

I wasn't referring to the state's view. I don't know what their view is.

What SHOULD be their view is what would bring in the most long term profit? Offering an overtaxed product will be a venture that is doomed to fail.

[LemonSoupKid]

My point is that handicappers are forced to bet into 20% + take out pools and still bet. Professional sports wants a cut of the $? Just like tracks want to get a cut of casino money. And if a track gets sports wagering, the local HBPA will want a cut of the $ also. Every time the $ get divided up, the bettor is going to be the one that pays for it.

Horse players are because the de facto reality is that there aren't other options of lower take, or if there are, they are a couple here and there, but nothing meaningful.

Vegas and offshores already offer -110, and offshores much fuller and better menus, a lot of them even offering -104 to -107 for sides.

While you may get a few idiots to bet into those prices, you'll lose at least 50% of your potential due to them moving elsewhere. If you doubt this, it was recently shown in Portugal (just legalized gambling) where they effectively tax just under 50% as opposed to the UK (15%) and it clearly drove over 50% from the Portuguese markets to offshores or the underground. Whereas that's only the case for 5% of the UK market given the much lower tax rate(s).