Assuming sports betting becomes legal in many states:

[Poindexter]

Do coaches change the way they coach? NBA, It is not unusual for the Warriors to be up 22 with say 3 minutes to go as a 14 point favorite, and Steve Kerr puts in his bottom 5 players. By the end of the game Gs wins by 11, and blows the cover. It is not unusual for a team to be +4, down 3 with 3 seconds to go, intentionally foul, other teams hits 2 free throws, team is now down 5, hopelessly beat they just dribble out the clock. Will there now be an outcry for them to call timeout if they have one, and even if they don't make an attempt to try to cover the spread. Then of course you have the sportsmanship thing, where a game is decided and team will dribble out the clock. Does that change if the spread is is question (9 point favorite up 8 with 12 seconds to go-team is dribbling out the clock and suddenly 1/4th of the crowd is yelling "shoot it, shoot it".

Same with the NFL, what if a team is 11 points favorite, they are up 9 with 30 seconds to go and they have the ball on the other teams 18 yard line. Now they just sit on the ball and run out the clock. Does this change? Will teams now feel an obligation to kick a field go and give themselves a chance to cover the spread?

Sports bettors have been dealing with this forever. But assuming this evolves to half of the stands making bets on their phones (I know the NFL isn't on board but certainly the NBA seems to be) does the responsibility of coaches and players change?

Of course with the NCAA sports you have hundreds of games and very young an inexperienced players trying to figure out how to react in these spread deciding moments. Their buddy is in the stands yelling "shoot man, shoot man".

I am sort of curious how this plays out. It is one thing when sports betting is underground and illegal, but when it becomes legal......One would expect that everything will play out if it currently does, but I am not so sure.

I do think think this is a lot of the stuff the leagues were trying to avoid by keeping sports betting illegal. It really has little to do with the integrity of the game, just the randomness of the game.

[JerryBoyle]

Interested to hear what others have to say. My gut reaction is that coaches/players/refs shouldn't allow betting to impact their decision making at all. Bettors and line makers should factor in how coaches/players/refs make decisions, not the other way around.

[horses4courses]

Legalizing sports wagering should increase transparency.
That is not to say that some insiders won't get greedy
and try to fix games and/or shave points.

However, with legal bookmakers taking the wagers,
it will be much easier for them to blow the whistle
on unusual betting patterns and suspicious activity.

Staying under the radar would not be impossible,
but excessive line movement and manipulation
is much easier to keep tabs on for legal books.

[woodbinepmi]

Hopefully, this will allow Betfair to expand quickly to other states.

[thaskalos]

Do coaches change the way they coach? NBA, It is not unusual for the Warriors to be up 22 with say 3 minutes to go as a 14 point favorite, and Steve Kerr puts in his bottom 5 players. By the end of the game Gs wins by 11, and blows the cover. It is not unusual for a team to be +4, down 3 with 3 seconds to go, intentionally foul, other teams hits 2 free throws, team is now down 5, hopelessly beat they just dribble out the clock. Will there now be an outcry for them to call timeout if they have one, and even if they don't make an attempt to try to cover the spread. Then of course you have the sportsmanship thing, where a game is decided and team will dribble out the clock. Does that change if the spread is is question (9 point favorite up 8 with 12 seconds to go-team is dribbling out the clock and suddenly 1/4th of the crowd is yelling "shoot it, shoot it".

Same with the NFL, what if a team is 11 points favorite, they are up 9 with 30 seconds to go and they have the ball on the other teams 18 yard line. Now they just sit on the ball and run out the clock. Does this change? Will teams now feel an obligation to kick a field go and give themselves a chance to cover the spread?

Sports bettors have been dealing with this forever. But assuming this evolves to half of the stands making bets on their phones (I know the NFL isn't on board but certainly the NBA seems to be) does the responsibility of coaches and players change?

Of course with the NCAA sports you have hundreds of games and very young an inexperienced players trying to figure out how to react in these spread deciding moments. Their buddy is in the stands yelling "shoot man, shoot man".

I am sort of curious how this plays out. It is one thing when sports betting is underground and illegal, but when it becomes legal......One would expect that everything will play out if it currently does, but I am not so sure.

I do think think this is a lot of the stuff the leagues were trying to avoid by keeping sports betting illegal. It really has little to do with the integrity of the game, just the randomness of the game.

We mustn't forget that sports betting isn't entirely "underground and illegal" now. If the current betting action in Nevada hasn't influenced the coaching of the games until now...why should it do so in the future?

[Poindexter]

We mustn't forget that sports betting isn't entirely "underground and illegal" now. If the current betting action in Nevada hasn't influenced the coaching of the games until now...why should it do so in the future?

The leagues are not behind betting in Vegas. That is a Vegas thing. They may have some cooperation with each other to make sure there is no point shaving type activity going on, but that is the extent of it.

Once this gets legalized in states throughout the nation and the leagues start getting their "integrity" fee or whatever they end up calling it, they now have the responsibility to insure that gambling is fair. To me as someone who bets a lot of basketball games, I realize that the random crap that happens at the end of games is part of the process. A lot of times the difference between a good season and a not so good season is having a lot of those late game situations go against you rather than for you.

But we are talking about 5 years in the future when sports betting is established just about everywhere and the sports leagues are very involved in the process. I know the NBA is going to want everybody in the stands on the phone betting on whether the next free throw is going in or not, who will reach 75 points first and which player will score the most points or get the most rebounds or who scores 1st Kevin Durant or J Harden.....

So when the home team is -13 and are up by 14 with 2:21 to go and the Coach yanks his starters, are the 4000 people in the stands who have bet their hard earned money on the home team, going to sit idly by and say "oh well, sure hope the reserves preserve the cover", or are they going to be screaming at the coach to get those starters back in?

I would even go as far as to say that rather than using win/loss records, using a hockey like point system where the winning team would get 1.5 points for a win and cover, 1 points for a win and non cover, 1/2 point for a loss and cover 0 points for a loss and no cover(you could even factor in pushes with 1/4 point adjustments), would make for a more interesting way of seeding teams rather than the traditional win/loss record. It certainly would make the game more interesting from the fans perspective whether they are betting or not if the team gets more points or winning and covering then winning and not covering and it certainly would motivate the teams to try to cover spreads. That would certainly be in a betting public's best interest.

[thaskalos]

The leagues are not behind betting in Vegas. That is a Vegas thing. They may have some cooperation with each other to make sure there is no point shaving type activity going on, but that is the extent of it.

Once this gets legalized in states throughout the nation and the leagues start getting their "integrity" fee or whatever they end up calling it, they now have the responsibility to insure that gambling is fair. To me as someone who bets a lot of basketball games, I realize that the random crap that happens at the end of games is part of the process. A lot of times the difference between a good season and a not so good season is having a lot of those late game situations go against you rather than for you.

But we are talking about 5 years in the future when sports betting is established just about everywhere and the sports leagues are very involved in the process. I know the NBA is going to want everybody in the stands on the phone betting on whether the next free throw is going in or not, who will reach 75 points first and which player will score the most points or get the most rebounds or who scores 1st Kevin Durant or J Harden.....

So when the home team is -13 and are up by 14 with 2:21 to go and the Coach yanks his starters, are the 4000 people in the stands who have bet their hard earned money on the home team, going to sit idly by and say "oh well, sure hope the reserves preserve the cover", or are they going to be screaming at the coach to get those starters back in?

I would even go as far as to say that rather than using win/loss records, using a hockey like point system where the winning team would get 1.5 points for a win and cover, 1 points for a win and non cover, 1/2 point for a loss and cover 0 points for a loss and no cover(you could even factor in pushes with 1/4 point adjustments), would make for a more interesting way of seeding teams rather than the traditional win/loss record. It certainly would make the game more interesting from the fans perspective whether they are betting or not if the team gets more points or winning and covering then winning and not covering and it certainly would motivate the teams to try to cover spreads. That would certainly be in a betting public's best interest.

You are not giving enough credit to the leagues for thinking things through, IMO. You will NEVER hear the leagues publicly admit that they are in favor of sport betting...didn't you see that they, along with president Trump, publicly DENOUNCED the Supreme Court's decision on this? The leagues will continue saying that widespread sports betting will undermine the integrity of their respective sports...even as they secretly smile ear-to-ear at the thought of having their fans so emotionally attached to the outcomes of these games. The hypocritical stance that the leagues have taken on this issue hasn't been without a motive; they want to distance themselves as far as they can from the gambling "evils" that you mention above.

Yes...the fans will boo when the home team puts in the scrubs late in the game, and fails to cover the spread. And, when the criticism gets loud enough, the leagues will remind us that they were against sports betting all along...and they will criticize the Supreme Court's decision all over again...and again. "We are not, and we'll never be in the gambling business", the leagues will publicly declare...while reminding us that the Supreme Court twisted their arm in this matter.

Who has ever given a rat's ass for the gambler's plight as he wagers hard-earned money on his game of choice? You seriously expect the sports "authorities" to change their ways NOW? The gambler is on his OWN out there...and there is no sympathetic ear for him to turn to when he loses. "Let the customer beware"...and all that. IMO...this is a can't-lose situation for the leagues. And, as far as the gamblers are concerned, they've gotten used to losing, so...what's the big deal?

[lamboguy]

i am fine with sports gambling. i would just like to know how i could obtain one of these licenses from any state to open up my own bookmaking shop and start taking action.

[Poindexter]

You are not giving enough credit to the leagues for thinking things through, IMO. You will NEVER hear the leagues publicly admit that they are in favor of sport betting...didn't you see that they, along with president Trump, publicly DENOUNCED the Supreme Court's decision on this? The leagues will continue saying that widespread sports betting will undermine the integrity of their respective sports...even as they secretly smile ear-to-ear at the thought of having their fans so emotionally attached to the outcomes of these games. The hypocritical stance that the leagues have taken on this issue hasn't been without a motive; they want to distance themselves as far as they can from the gambling "evils" that you mention above.

Yes...the fans will boo when the home team puts in the scrubs late in the game, and fails to cover the spread. And, when the criticism gets loud enough, the leagues will remind us that they were against sports betting all along...and they will criticize the Supreme Court's decision all over again...and again. "We are not, and we'll never be in the gambling business", the leagues will publicly declare...while reminding us that the Supreme Court twisted their arm in this matter.

Who has ever given a rat's ass for the gambler's plight as he wagers hard-earned money on his game of choice? You seriously expect the sports "authorities" to change their ways NOW? The gambler is on his OWN out there...and there is no sympathetic ear for him to turn to when he loses. "Let the customer beware"...and all that. IMO...this is a can't-lose situation for the leagues. And, as far as the gamblers are concerned, they've gotten used to losing, so...what's the big deal?

NCAA, NFL, I don't know if you will ever see them publicly on board, but they sure will not hesitate to get their piece of the pie. But NBA is on board and they will be promoting this. Here is Adam Silver being interviewed on the subject.

https://www.wsj.com/video/nba-adam-silver-on-why-he-supports-legal-sports-betting/27DC4F82-D2D1-4890-AF3D-C551375620A2.html

I really do not care. NBA is doing just fine and they go are going to make huge money with all of this as will the others. I just find it an interesting topic of discussion, because I know how many of these games come down to something, like whether a player decides to foul with 3.1 seconds to go or decided not to foul and let the clock run out or whether the ref decides to call it or not.

I do think incorporating pointspread record into a teams seeding as I mentioned in my prior post will eliminate a lot of this. If a team is motivated to cover a spread it will go hand in hand with sports betting and it will make for more interesting games in general. The closing line is a very good indicator of the relative abilities of the teams, so why not give a team extra credit for covering the spread and less credit if they do not. It is a way of rewarding and penalizing performance beyond win/loss (basically a handicap).

[horses4courses]

i am fine with sports gambling. i would just like to know how i could obtain one of these licenses from any state to open up my own bookmaking shop and start taking action.

Save yourself the rent.
Just wait for Betfair to open with sports wagering.
You can take all the wagers you want.

[Valuist]

I agree with Thaskalos. Sports betting has been going on for a long time. Why would a coach alter his strategy now? His job is to win games, not cover spreads. Same with the players.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I bet maybe 3 football games a season (NFL). I never bet hoops, hockey, or baseball.

What strikes me is that any team that is playing to the line will be identified pretty quickly and I don't think any commissioner will tolerate it.

Does this mean Pete Rose was a man ahead of his time?

[Dave Schwartz]

...

I would even go as far as to say that rather than using win/loss records, using a hockey like point system where the winning team would get 1.5 points for a win and cover, 1 points for a win and non cover, 1/2 point for a loss and cover 0 points for a loss and no cover(you could even factor in pushes with 1/4 point adjustments), would make for a more interesting way of seeding teams rather than the traditional win/loss record. It certainly would make the game more interesting from the fans perspective whether they are betting or not if the team gets more points or winning and covering then winning and not covering and it certainly would motivate the teams to try to cover spreads. That would certainly be in a betting public's best interest.

Most interesting idea... to actually integrate the gambling.

Of course, then we get a complete reversal of the potential problem: The league has to worry about the linemakers tilting the line to change the standings.

Talk about a slippery slope...

Makes the old win-and-travel system seem like it could have been a great equalizer.


Dave

[Thebart]

I love all this talk, especially on here, about sports betting. It would be great if vast numbers of horse players get into sports gambling. Dividing their attention between racing and sports betting will not make them better horse players. Maybe some odds here and there will improve.

Some gamblers - the ones with a real gambling addiction - always need something else to throw money at because thoroughbred race wagering is no longer a beatable game. Or so they say. Every guy I've ever known with a gambling problem - and I've known a few - needed a constant supply of what they called "action." Now there will be new opportunities.

Many of these people are going to have access to lots more action. It will be interesting to see how it all works out. The only safe bet, is that if there's a way for the horse racing industry owners to screw things up, my money says they will.

Bottom line for me: When I'm thinking about races at Belmont or Aqueduct betting on other sports is of literally no interest even if it were available. When it comes to betting the races, I don't multi-task.

[LemonSoupKid]

Why would a league get any action? They deserve nothing. All of their attempts are literally retarded. They spent more money trying to stop this, costing all the states lots of money in lawyers and fees, particularly NJ. Why would they get any cut? Their position is that gambling is bad. That's what is so hard to stomach, the stench coming out of Manfred and Silver et al's collective mouths, the ultimate in hypocrisy. What's more, they partnered with fantasy sports knowing it was gambling and (I surmise) to get a leg up on this. They are all frauds.

Vegas never had to give them jack squat. No other state should even consider it. It's not in your business plan or interest to be involved in gambling as a league by definition it causes irreconcilable controversies with your plan and purpose as a league.

By the way, that's they they want a "Federal" [insert next, new lying language] law to cover it all, because they know they can't be the states and why would any state give them anything when Vegas hasn't for 50 years?

People not seeing through this makes me throw up. Come on people, get a clue.