Sports Wagering one step closer in NJ....

[onefast99]

Originally Posted by badcompany

I don't disagree, but, if Vegas hasn't capitalized on this action, why would Atlantic City?

AC will be one of the few destinations where you can bet on sports along with the race tracks as you know it is live on premise betting only no phones no internet!. You bring Vegas into this, they have a nice revenue generating platform(dating back to the 20's), they are a travel destination for both the single bettor and families alike. AC was never and will never be a family destination. My original comment was the creditors won't be so quick to force the remaining casinos who are under water into a bk filing as they know SW could be that silver lining AC never had. You can throw all those Vegas numbers out the window you are comparing apples to oranges....

[lamboguy]

if and that is a very big if New Jersey gets straight bet sports wagering, they will get a lot of business with it.

i don't think the main obstacle for New Jersey sports gambling are college and pro sport leagues, i believe its the state of Nevada. Straight wager sports betting draws in people for NCAA basketball tournaments, the superbowl, boxing, etc. i don't see why they would ever want New Jersey to have legalized straight wager sports gambling.

Christie is trying to circumvent some federal law that makes it almost impossible to have legal straight wager gambling anywhere else outside of Nevada.

[SandyW]

Originally Posted by onefast99

AC will be one of the few destinations where you can bet on sports along with the race tracks as you know it is live on premise betting only no phones no internet!. You bring Vegas into this, they have a nice revenue generating platform(dating back to the 20's), they are a travel destination for both the single bettor and families alike. AC was never and will never be a family destination. My original comment was the creditors won't be so quick to force the remaining casinos who are under water into a bk filing as they know SW could be that silver lining AC never had. You can throw all those Vegas numbers out the window you are comparing apples to oranges....

This country has a lot more problems then to worry if New Jersey gets sports betting, they had their chance from Jan. 1, 1993 to Dec. 31, 1993 to take advantage of the 1992 act and did zero about it and now they are crying like babies.
Ever is a long time, but in this case I think it will be closer to ever then to just a long time before New Jersey gets Sports Betting.
The fact is and always will be is that New Jersey blew their chance when they had the golden goose staring them right in the face.

[onefast99]

Originally Posted by SandyW

This country has a lot more problems then to worry if New Jersey gets sports betting, they had their chance from Jan. 1, 1993 to Dec. 31, 1993 to take advantage of the 1992 act and did zero about it and now they are crying like babies.
Ever is a long time, but in this case I think it will be closer to ever then to just a long time before New Jersey gets Sports Betting.
The fact is and always will be is that New Jersey blew their chance when they had the golden goose staring them right in the face.

"I maintain this [PASPA] is unconstitutional anyway,” said Pallone. "You can’t say that 46 states can do something and four states can’t.”

Here is all you need to know, get ready for some sports wagering in NJ!!!

[SandyW]

Originally Posted by onefast99

"I maintain this [PASPA] is unconstitutional anyway,” said Pallone. "You can’t say that 46 states can do something and four states can’t.”

Here is all you need to know, get ready for some sports wagering in NJ!!!

Frank Pallone can say anything that he wants to say, but he is not strong enough to change the law and does not make court rulings.
I stand by all my statements. A long road to hoe!!!!

[bks]

The leagues, in their filing on Monday, said that the law passed by New Jersey's Legislature explicitly saw sports gambling being a state-regulated industry, which would be a violation of the 1992 act. They also argued that since casinos and racetracks are heavily regulated by the state, offering sports wagering there would amount to having it regulated by the state as well.

Assuming these are the two main issues for Judge Shipp to decide, note the first is a matter decidable by direct reference to the bill (it was either explicit, or it wasn't), but the second calls for interpretation. My understanding of the NJ gambit is that the second argument is false: they will not be regulating it and thus would not be in violation of PAPSA, provided the new NJ bill that passes is itself explicit that the state will not play such a role. Taxation is not regulation (I would argue), as it only requires compliance with laws of financial disclosure. None of us are "regulated" in our activities because we are taxed, though the fact that inferences may be drawn from our financial reports almost certainly influences the behavior of many people.

Always remember the true objections sports leagues have:

1. It makes them sick that anyone else but them should make a dollar off of "their" product. The leagues were started by bookmakers and racketeers who would rather eat their own children than see someone else run a racket based on an enterprise of their own.

2. The leagues live in abject fear of close scrutiny of their own books and financial dealings, since every league has owners who, if you look hard enough, has a ton of shady deals to his credit and a host of illicit connections he doesn't want made public (you think Al Davis, Steinbrenner, and the Debartolos were the only ones?). They are terrified of scrutiny, and down the line they know that legalizing gambling means closer scrutiny and ultimately as municipalities become more dependent on the revenue, greater risk of public ownership.

[onefast99]

Originally Posted by bks

Assuming these are the two main issues for Judge Shipp to decide, note the first is a matter decidable by direct reference to the bill (it was either explicit, or it wasn't), but the second calls for interpretation. My understanding of the NJ gambit is that the second argument is false: they will not be regulating it and thus would not be in violation of PAPSA, provided the new NJ bill that passes is itself explicit that the state will not play such a role. Taxation is not regulation (I would argue), as it only requires compliance with laws of financial disclosure. None of us are "regulated" in our activities because we are taxed, though the fact that inferences may be drawn from our financial reports almost certainly influences the behavior of many people.

Always remember the true objections sports leagues have:

1. It makes them sick that anyone else but them should make a dollar off of "their" product. The leagues were started by bookmakers and racketeers who would rather eat their own children than see someone else run a racket based on an enterprise of their own.

2. The leagues live in abject fear of close scrutiny of their own books and financial dealings, since every league has owners who, if you look hard enough, has a ton of shady deals to his credit and a host of illicit connections he doesn't want made public (you think Al Davis, Steinbrenner, and the Debartolos were the only ones?). They are terrified of scrutiny, and down the line they know that legalizing gambling means closer scrutiny and ultimately as municipalities become more dependent on the revenue, greater risk of public ownership.

On numerous occasions Dennis Drazin offered the sports leagues a sit down to discuss how they can become involved in the state of New Jersey sports wagering platform, all the leagues declined. Now the leagues may want to sit down once the green light is given for SW to operate in the state at racetracks and casinos.

[SandyW]

Originally Posted by onefast99

On numerous occasions Dennis Drazin offered the sports leagues a sit down to discuss how they can become involved in the state of New Jersey sports wagering platform, all the leagues declined. Now the leagues may want to sit down once the green light is given for SW to operate in the state at racetracks and casinos.

That green light will have to go thru the Supreme Court if I am not mistaken.

[onefast99]

Originally Posted by SandyW

That green light will have to go thru the Supreme Court if I am not mistaken.

You are mistaken... the justices declined to hear the case, allowing the lower court rulings to stand.

[badcompany]

Originally Posted by onefast99

AC will be one of the few destinations where you can bet on sports along with the race tracks as you know it is live on premise betting only no phones no internet!...

What exactly is the great attraction of "live" betting? The Clerk? It's a completely dated business model that can only exist via government intervention.

[onefast99]

Originally Posted by badcompany

What exactly is the great attraction of "live" betting? The Clerk? It's a completely dated business model that can only exist via government intervention.

It is how this platform must start, no ifs no ands and no buts! As with slots at a racino, eventually the table games come in, as with the tellers taking the SW bets there will have to be phone and or internet wagering eventually. Let the bugs shake out and then push for the add ons!

[Canarsie]

Originally Posted by onefast99

He won't do SW until he sees it has survived any possible legal issues. He also is the one sitting at the Meadowlands with a backer that is patient enough to wait and become the first to get a shot at a full service casino on or near his track!

That is the reasonable course which could take quite some time. I still have no answer what happens to the poor teller who takes a bet and gets popped. Will the facility where the wager took place guarantee him or her the same legal representation and firm? As previously stated I hope I'm dead wrong on this but seeing a middle class person having to be bailed out while the bigwigs sit on the sidelines makes me want to throw up.

[Canarsie]

Originally Posted by SandyW

Frank Pallone can say anything that he wants to say, but he is not strong enough to change the law and does not make court rulings.
I stand by all my statements. A long road to hoe!!!!

Technically you are right but Pallone has been in congress for around 25 years. He wields enough power to make shortcuts possible even if the road is extremely rocky. I would much rather have him on my side than against.

Politics aside he has served his constituents well just like senator (previously assemblyman) Thompson has done for monmouth and middlesex counties. On an issue like this it is fortunate that two people from different parties can come down on one side of the fence.

[SandyW]

Originally Posted by Canarsie

That is the reasonable course which could take quite some time. I still have no answer what happens to the poor teller who takes a bet and gets popped. Will the facility where the wager took place guarantee him or her the same legal representation and firm? As previously stated I hope I'm dead wrong on this but seeing a middle class person having to be bailed out while the bigwigs sit on the sidelines makes me want to throw up.

Being in the casino business all my adult life, my guess is the bigwigs will just let him rot, sort of like our poor hero marine that is suffering in a jail in Mexico.

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by badcompany

What exactly is the great attraction of "live" betting? The Clerk? It's a completely dated business model that can only exist via government intervention.

The attraction?
Dealing in cash with a live person.

You would be surprised how many prefer it,
and choose to bet in Nevada because of this.