| onefast99 |
01-30-2018 10:37 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by affirmedny
(Post 2268869)
|
MP wasn't even considered in the casino expansion lottery. The track was paid monies each year by casinos not to put in VLTs but that was before the track went private with the Horseman running it.
I would venture to say SW will not cure the racing issues that are happening in NJ but it is a start. |
| biggestal99 |
02-01-2018 06:32 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by LemonSoupKid
(Post 2249230)
I'd like to hear one great argument on the PASPA side.
This is the most clearly unconstitutional law going, and it's not even close. It is breathtakingly idiotic and it's an embarrassment to American jurisprudence that this is even a question. Seriously, with judges like those at the district and appellate court level, no wonder why no one respects the legal profession.
Not only is it illogical in every way, it violates the 10th Amendment from the get-go. Which is proven by the fact that they allowed anyone to have it, or keep it --- and then make it unequal (only Vegas with single game betting, lol), then this, then that, it's a total joke.
|
I have argued that same point here for how many years.
Starting with Christie one and carried on with Christie two.
Jersey should control jersey,s law.
Not the Feds.
The justices made very good points if the point was to stop sports betting in America, they could have passed a law stating that and preempt all states laws.
Instead they passed PASPA allowing Nevada to keep their sports betting while restricting all other states.
Patently unconstitutional.
Allan |
| upthecreek |
02-07-2018 03:53 PM |
Decision may come Mid March
|
| upthecreek |
04-21-2018 03:00 PM |
Integrity Fee
|
| highnote |
04-21-2018 03:08 PM |
Attorney Nelson Rose, an expert in gambling law, recently wrote about these fees. The math doesn't work. 1% is way too high because the margins on sports betting are so small.
http://www.gamblingandthelaw.com/imp...ports-betting/
Quote:
The most recent official figures show that for the 12 months ending in November 2017 there were 195 sports books in Nevada. They won a total of $233,299,000. Dividing the total win of approximately $233 million by the number of sports books, 195, means the average Nevada book wins about $1.2 million a year.
The reported win percentage was 4.82%. This includes parlay cards and parimutuel bets, where the house keeps a much larger share. Still, using the reported hold of 4.82% means the average sports book in Nevada accepts almost $25 million a year in bets ($1.2 million divided by 4.82%).
Put that average sports book in Indiana and you get $25 million in bets a year, revenue of $1,040,000 ($25,000,000 times a hold of 4.16%). Out of that win of about $1 million a year, the Indiana sports book would have to pay $250,000 to the leagues, $62,500 in federal taxes and $96,200 in taxes to the state. This leaves the sports book again with revenue of about 2.5% of wagers or $631,300. Out of that $631,300, the operator has to pay all other expenses, including other taxes, such as property and income taxes.
|
|
| biggestal99 |
04-21-2018 05:06 PM |
Why would you pay the leagues anything. They fought Jersey tooth and nail and prevented Monmouth and the casinos and cost megabucks.
No to fees to leagues.
Let them pound sand.
Allan
|
Leagues have to get nothing. Anything more is robbery. Just provides another reason to eventually dissolve them and then re-form them as player-owned or municipality-owned entities.
Don;t think NJ court decision comes until the last days of the Supreme Court session in Late June. Complicated case. Hope I'm wrong.
|
| upthecreek |
04-23-2018 11:56 AM |
|
| upthecreek |
04-23-2018 12:11 PM |
TVG ready for sports Betting
|
NJ Sports Betting decision not among those announced this morning. Apr 30 next possible date. Still think it's late June.
|
| AstrosFan |
04-25-2018 09:36 AM |
Everyone I talk to say it's going to pass, but why is that so certain and will they allow the exact same wagering as LV does now?
|
| upthecreek |
05-01-2018 05:36 PM |
|
| biggestal99 |
05-03-2018 07:47 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstrosFan
(Post 2307430)
Everyone I talk to say it's going to pass, but why is that so certain and will they allow the exact same wagering as LV does now?
|
Not sure who the "they" are in your statement.
SCOTUS?
Jersey?
I dont care about other states, Jersey repealed its sports gambling laws in regards to racetracks and casinos, which basically means the racetracks and the casinos make up their own rules. Will Hill is in charge of Monmouth and they have quite a large stake in sports books in Nevada, why would Will Hill not allow exactly the same rules as their sports books in Vegas?
I will be the same in Jersey, sans pesky state intervention.
Its not state regulated, authorized or licensed per their arguments in front of SCOTUS. Basically Jersey is asking for the feds to leave Jersey alone to make its own laws and keep their noses out of Jersey's gambling businesses. (10th Amendment issues). If the Jersey wants to repeal their laws its none of the feds nor the sports leagues business.
Allan |
Quote:
Originally Posted by biggestal99
(Post 2310821)
Not sure who the "they" are in your statement.
SCOTUS?
Jersey?
I dont care about other states, Jersey repealed its sports gambling laws in regards to racetracks and casinos, which basically means the racetracks and the casinos make up their own rules. Will Hill is in charge of Monmouth and they have quite a large stake in sports books in Nevada, why would Will Hill not allow exactly the same rules as their sports books in Vegas?
I will be the same in Jersey, sans pesky state intervention.
Its not state regulated, authorized or licensed per their arguments in front of SCOTUS. Basically Jersey is asking for the feds to leave Jersey alone to make its own laws and keep their noses out of Jersey's gambling businesses. (10th Amendment issues). If the Jersey wants to repeal their laws its none of the feds nor the sports leagues business.
Allan
|
One of the things that makes this so fascinating. In harness racing terms, Jersey has done all the work to "cut the mile" - it's be a shame to see a federal repeal ushered in on their backs. Let Jersey have its statutory victory, and then when the rush of other cases surely follow, consider a federal repeal. That year or two where jersey will have the entire east coast market to itself would be huge for them, and fitting given their role in this fight. |
| Hambletonian |
05-04-2018 12:18 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by bks
(Post 2311379)
One of the things that makes this so fascinating. In harness racing terms, Jersey has done all the work to "cut the mile" - it's be a shame to see a federal repeal ushered in on their backs. Let Jersey have its statutory victory, and then when the rush of other cases surely follow, consider a federal repeal. That year or two where jersey will have the entire east coast market to itself would be huge for them, and fitting given their role in this fight.
|
Puuhlleeeze!
It was a senator from NJ that was the driving force behind PASPA!
My favorite part of this was when NJ was claiming that they just wanted to repeal their existing law...which would technically mean that it wasn't illegal to take sports bets...until they realized that Louie from the corner would now be a law abiding citizen. So they decided to add language specifying where sports betting would be legal, and on what games (no NJ college teams or games).
PASPA made it illegal for NJ to authorize sports betting...so short of a straight, clean repeal of the state law...it seems that passing any regs on the subject could be construed as "authorization."
If the SCOTUS does not repeal PASPA outright, just make it OK for NJ to repeal its law, well, that may be fun to watch. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:14 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
|
|
