negativity re sports betting

[Half Smoke]

______________


negativity surrounding the mass legalization of sports betting is now being voiced in many places

one Senator compared the marketing of "free bets" to someone handing out free samples of cocaine

my two cents worth: Yes, this will definitely cause some pain. there will definitely be many, probably mostly younger people, who cannot handle the temptations of it well

click the link and then the NYT story to miss the NYT paywall and read the story





https://www.google.com/search?q=stat...hrome&ie=UTF-8


.

[Dave Schwartz]

Paywalled

[davew]

this link has most of it

https://pechanga.net/state-officials...p25062-259.htm

[rastajenk]

I'm curious to see how sports betting affects racing's handle. Here is Ohio, we are just weeks away from it's Jan 1 start-up. I had assumed that the 4 casinos and 7 racinos would be the only ones setting up shop, in the way that the Lawrenceburg IN Hollywood casino now has a Barstool sports book. And that on-line wagering would be allowed. But it's going to be way more than that...

https://sportshandle.com/ohio/

Skim through this link to see that every pro team in the state, the Ohio State University, NASCAR and the PGA have partnered with one of dozens of online providers, and well as getting the go-ahead to establish betting parlors in their facilities. Imagine that: the Reds, who gave the world Pete Rose, will have a betting parlor at Great American Ballpark.

And then there's this: "Type C sportsbooks will definitely be the most prevalent in the state. A Type C sportsbook license is for a retail kiosk that can be placed in a facility that already has a liquor license, which would include thousands of bars and restaurants throughout the state...The license fee for a Type C sportsbook is just $1000 for three years, so we expect many taverns and restaurants to install kiosks at their businesses."

It's going to be everywhere in the Buckeye state. I don't see how it can't peel off some horseracing action.

[lamboguy]

last week, some guy bet a $5 parlay in the NFL that had a chance to win $18,000. one of his bets in the parlay was The Giants to play in overtime and wind up a tie game. the bet he lost was The Chiefs to play in overtime and wind up tied!. i am not sure what the odds are for 2 games on the same day ending up tied are in the NFL, but my guess is that would be north of 10,000-1,

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

last week, some guy bet a $5 parlay in the NFL that had a chance to win $18,000. one of his bets in the parlay was The Giants to play in overtime and wind up a tie game. the bet he lost was The Chiefs to play in overtime and wind up tied!. i am not sure what the odds are for 2 games on the same day ending up tied are in the NFL, but my guess is that would be north of 10,000-1,

Something for everyone! I don't know much about lotto as my only exposure was an ex-wife that used to play when California got a state run lotto in the mid 80's. The bet you mentioned I suppose would attract a daily 4 player, and you would get a lot more entertainment out of that $5 than watching some number pop up, and the bet requires a person to think.


Of course any power to be with a brain running a sports organization wants to partner with online sports gambling establishments. Who the hell would watch a late December game between a couple 3-12 teams other than hard core fans of those teams and gamblers?



I know everyone in here trusts politicians to tell the truth at all times and never be deceptive. Anyone else think their concern over online sports betting could be due to fear of it taking a big chunk of lotto money?
Lotto used to have a 50% take when I was in California, what is the take on sports betting if you figure in all of the wagering menu, 10%?


And one more shout out to Roger Goodell to go f**k himself. There isn't a thing about that A-hole I like. This one is for all the promoting of Fantasy Football, while not wanting the expansion of sportsbook type wagering on the NFL, acting like Fantasy Football isn't gambling.

[burnsy]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

I'm curious to see how sports betting affects racing's handle. Here is Ohio, we are just weeks away from it's Jan 1 start-up. I had assumed that the 4 casinos and 7 racinos would be the only ones setting up shop, in the way that the Lawrenceburg IN Hollywood casino now has a Barstool sports book. And that on-line wagering would be allowed. But it's going to be way more than that...

https://sportshandle.com/ohio/

Skim through this link to see that every pro team in the state, the Ohio State University, NASCAR and the PGA have partnered with one of dozens of online providers, and well as getting the go-ahead to establish betting parlors in their facilities. Imagine that: the Reds, who gave the world Pete Rose, will have a betting parlor at Great American Ballpark.

And then there's this: "Type C sportsbooks will definitely be the most prevalent in the state. A Type C sportsbook license is for a retail kiosk that can be placed in a facility that already has a liquor license, which would include thousands of bars and restaurants throughout the state...The license fee for a Type C sportsbook is just $1000 for three years, so we expect many taverns and restaurants to install kiosks at their businesses."

It's going to be everywhere in the Buckeye state. I don't see how it can't peel off some horseracing action.

The competition is not horse racing’s only problem . Well, it sort of is because horse racing has refused to acknowledge it for some 40 years . All of these sports have legit stars and sporting competition. Horse racing has stars that retire in 6 starts . Basically 4 stakes wins and trainers with almost half the entries in a 5 to 7 horse field . And still have not taken steps to change this ! People can play these other games and actually get a thrill of knowing that’s it’s an actual competition. And win or lose , they can see the participants return next time for more glory or redemption. I mean , you open the form or whatever info you use and see one guy training half the field. Or just when a horse is in a roll , gaining momentum, popularity and a following ……. They retire . Horse racing basically has no shot vs what’s going on in our society right now .

As far as the addiction goes . It’s a problem with the way we think . This society is somewhat narcissistic. You got people addicted to everything that’s out there . The morons blaming this or that , fail to see the root cause . At this point , it’s become : “Pick your Poison. “ me, me , me. More is better even if it destroys me ! Lol

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

I know everyone in here trusts politicians to tell the truth at all times and never be deceptive. Anyone else think their concern over online sports betting could be due to fear of it taking a big chunk of lotto money?
Lotto used to have a 50% take when I was in California, what is the take on sports betting if you figure in all of the wagering menu, 10%?

I am officially flagging this as SATIRE & SARCASM.
LOL

Just in case anybody missed that.

[burnsy]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

I am officially flagging this as SATIRE & SARCASM.
LOL

Just in case anybody missed that.

Well, here in NY that Lotto money is supposed to support the schools . But the schools are crying poverty and many are broken down . What’s that say ? No leaks there .

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

I am officially flagging this as SATIRE & SARCASM.
LOL

Just in case anybody missed that.

Which part? When I was in California when the original lottery was a yes or no vote on the ballot they said 50% of every dollar wagered would go to the schools, after administration expenses. All lotto profits were to help the schools because property taxes could to longer keep up. That leads me to believe in a 50% take and would figure other legal state run lotteries would be similar. If that number has changed, or all states vary, please inform us.


As for a 10% take on sports wagering that is a wild ass guess based on a minimum of 5% on a -110 game point spread bet and then averaging in the future type wagers with a much larger take, and slightly higher line spreads.


Well before internet gambling I took a very early future field on the Super
Bowl and crunched the numbers like it was a field of horses. The take was 50%. Of course even if it is still that high what a football bettor lays on that is a small amount compared to the total of weekly bets. I also think a lot of those bets are people blindly betting on their favorite team at the beginning of the year, so they can get away with poor odds.

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by burnsy

Well, here in NY that Lotto money is supposed to support the schools . But the schools are crying poverty and many are broken down . What’s that say ? No leaks there .

Same in California where I come from, and you know those lottos make bank.
I bet the local country store makes a lotto sale an average of every two minutes.

[Aerocraft67]

I’m in the thick of this as a Maryland resident unleashed on sports betting Wednesday before Thanksgiving. But that’s after years of hard knocks race betting with you guys.

Despite the overwhelming success and popularity of emerging U.S. sportsbooks, the seedier stigma of horse betting, and all the deserved criticism we hurl on our own pastime, race betting sometimes looks way more dignified than sports betting. I find it much easier to evaluate my performance with racing ADWs than sportsbooks.

Perhaps the most ridiculous sportsbook behavior is all the kowtowing to responsible gambling they do while aggressively incentivizing unfavorable, habitual gambling. The goofy parlays with highest vigorish get the most attention, along with promotions with multiple successive bets and tight deadlines.

Hard to argue that doesn’t incentivise more, frequent, habitual gambling in direct contrast to avoiding progression into the risk of problem gambling. Also hard to imagine most new gamblers have the fortitude to deconstruct and counter those incentives to wager more in their interest.

For example, I’m finding that sportsbooks won’t offer many logical parlays. A classic example is an underdog to keep it close, cover a spread, under the total. When they are available, the vigorish is much less favorable than the individual bets. But goofy propositions on individual player performance that are much harder to appraise are abundant and aggressively promoted.

“Free bets” are indeed misleading. They are second-chance bets. You just get a second chance to win your wager—you can still lose it. Larger wagers and higher odds elevate the expected value. But that also reduces the likelihood of winning. Sort of like a million-to-one lottery jackpot progression up to $1.1 million. Sure, it’s a positive expectation, but it's literally one in a million.

I can’t imagine most new bettors truly have a grasp of 4/5 or 4/1 or 40/1 propositions. Not to mention how vigorish erodes them.

That said, I didn’t have to look far to find books that dispense enough basic wisdom to keep a new sports punter out of trouble. They plainly advise not to bet parlays because they’re unfavorable propositions that favor the house, for instance.

No wonder Michigan State is re-evaluating its cozy relationship with Caesars. Sure, college students are young adults, but they’re vulnerable as hell. Sportsbooks aren’t inherently sleazy, but flagship universities are awfully prestigious brands. Seems way risky to tie them up so conspicuously with gambling interests…on their own sports.

Seems more reasonable at the pro level. I actually looked more favorably on a sportsbook with an NHL affiliation to bet that league. Maybe colleges got caught up in the “professionalization” of college sports, and got ahead of themselves letting the “grown up” gambling interests in too close.

Not sure why any of this is surprising to legislators, though. We’ve been through it all with alcohol and tobacco and porn and whatnot. Gambling is a bit less inherently vice than some of those things, so maybe policy makers just got wooed too far by gambling boosters.

Interesting that one of the pushbacks is on taxing the promos, for instance. Never mind the vice, morality, and public harm—it’s about the money!

[Half Smoke]

___________


the way I see it - it does not just pose a risk of financial harm - getting wiped out by gambling

I've been betting for so long and have spent so much time on it - and even when I'm not betting - I'm often thinking about various strategies

I believe I have some ability as a writer - got a couple of things published

if I had spent even a quarter of the time on that that I spent on wagering or thinking about it I think I could have done a lot more with it

in other words, I've wasted a hell of a lot of time

overall, I'm ahead - but I was never comfortable betting really big, so my profits are insignificant when compared with my other investments

but yes, I have enjoyed the ride

so, it's not a slam dunk either way



.

[Inner Dirt]

Aerocraft67, where did you end up placing your wagers? If you don't like the odds on underdogs and have a decent speed internet connection, you should look into in game wagering on Fan Duel. If the underdog is playing well in the first half all the way to halftime they don't seem to reduce the points the favorite is giving by that much, even when a game gets into the second half
taking the points with the underdog usually gives you an instant lead. This applies to basketball and football, I don't do hockey. Probably some NBA research could yield some profits there as I believe they probably use the same ones for all in game betting. You could find teams that clear the bench
at given points and let the other team catch up some.


As for needing a decent internet connection on the in games they will take action on and off many times, the games are never down for too long, but if you are trying to parlay them and you have slow internet like me it will drive you nuts.

[thaskalos]

Gambling improves the flavor of living, IMO...and our politicians should leave us alone so we can do whatever we want with our own money. If our politicians have nothing better to do...then they should endeavor to do something about their own gross hypocrisy.