> the amount wagered on sports bets has grown from $5 billion to $150 billion annually. 58% of college students have bet on sports. 50% of all men below 50 have an online sports betting account.
If I had my way, everyone who has ever made a "why make it illegal/regulate it? People will just do it anyway."-style argument would be forced under penalty of law to write the above quote 300 times on a chalkboard.
Note that the article uses an outdated name for the Supreme Court case: Christie was replaced as governor while it was ongoing and the final name was Murphy v NCAA. That will make it easier to search for later coverage of the result instead of just early blog posts from when it was brought to court.
They left out the UIGEA which specifically legalized fantasy sports for money and the fact that FanDuel was not the first daily fantasy sports site (went through YC with one myself in 2007) but good primer nonetheless.
Sports betting is one of those things that sounds kind of harmless in the abstract, and like something that consenting adults should be allowed to do. But in practice, it causes enormous harm, both by draining the meagre resources of the people who get addicted to it, and by changing the nature of the sports in ways that make them less enjoyable for everyone who isn't betting.
I think betting needs to work like credit cards. When you get a credit card the bank does a risk assessment to evaluate your line of credit and you won't be able to spend over that limit.
Well, sports betting could have the same mechanism, where you are only allowed to bet an amount proportional to your line of credit.
If the banks don't trust you to spend over that limit and honour your debt, why should betting houses be any different?
The problem is the intersection of two things that have questionable social merit and you could easily see a society making illegal.
One of them is gambling.
The other is modern marketing.
Combined, they represent a substantial harm.
With nearly all of our social agency - which in our society means money - already in the possession of a tiny fraction of the country, with the bottom half of the country having approximately zero savings and spending at least as much as they have income? Any revenue gleaned from their dysfunctional attitude becomes a collective hardship, money that needs to be replaced by some form of subsidy to maintain our quality of life and avoid spillover problems like property crime.
There's some intense opposition to betting here. It's odd because in the UK sports betting is pretty much embedded in the culture. In fact i'm pretty sure the only reason horse racing is even a thing is because posh rich people like to bet on it. It's something which even the monarchy implicitly supports. I'm anti gambling personally which is part of why i hate crypto but i don't get why sports betting in particular is so objectionable.
My charitable interpretation is that it's a way for fans to feel more invested in the game. When their team wins they also do.
My grandpa, a World War II Veteran, lived in Kansas City his whole adult life. He saw ballot measures come up over and over to legalize river boat gambling, and it failed for decades. Another initiative would always crop up a few years later.
In 1992, when the innocuously named “Proposition A” finally passed, these monstrous “riverboat casinos” were built all along the Missouri riverfront.
He said before he died, “it’s funny, once it passed, there weren’t any more votes on it”.
I don't understand why we couldn't at least have put restrictions on the advertising like with cigarettes. Following sports just feels slimy now, gambling promotion has permeated every part of the game, broadcast, talk radio, online forums, etc.
This is disgusting and the bane of Australia as well.
There is just too much money to be made in that space. It's sickening.
And with apps on phones, it's 24/7 for some people. They get sucked in and gamed like babies bums in talc powder.
And it started with Twitch now. Kids get addicted watching these rigged players and believe they too can get rich doing it. It's a form of opioid legalised because the government gets the kick back.
Seems like this article is mostly just a rehash of that podcast. At least it's linked in the piece but for anyone not on Spotify, here's a link to the actual podcast page: https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/against-the-rules
Any modicum of research will show how dangerous this is. Despite warning against addiction, sports betting websites engage in dark patterns because whales are where the money is at. Your local bookie isn't engaging in AB testing to see how long before sending you free credit promotions will bring you back to their platform.
My cheeky answer to "how should this be regulated?" is that sports betting isn't materially different from other high-risk private investments, so it should only be available to accredited investors. Imagine if fanduels/draftkings had to verify assets and income before taking a single bet?!
And if you are consistently winning they will ban you! They can legally back off (reduce max bet to a tiny amount) or straight up ban people who bet smart.
These books also market what are the hardest to understand and worst bets to consumers. Think 4 way parlays. Like all 4 legs seem reasonable. They probably on their own each have a 70 pct probability. But that means a 24 pct of hitting. Of course they are all over props because people love to bet over. They are taking advantage of the fact that most people don't understand expected value or odds of multiple independent things happening
>And if you are consistently winning they will ban you! They can legally back off (reduce max bet to a tiny amount) or straight up ban people who bet smart.
I'm not from US, I'm from EU but I'm still paranoid of that so I only sports bet at state owned lottery/betting company.
I know few mathematicians that work in betting world and model data (both odds as well as user profiling).
It is not true that you get banned if you win too often, but it is true that you get banned, and flagged, if your winning patterns are suspicious.
It's essentially like in a casino. You can win more than once and big, good for you.
But if patterns emerge, you get banned.
E.g. Betting small sums on football and suddenly betting very big on a specific baseball game and winning. Do it few times and you're banned as it's obviously strange.
I mean technically stock trading platforms can ban you if you trade too well. Usually happens with options, not buy and hold positions. Retail trading platforms need users that are statistically no different than random to sell their order flow to HFT firms.
The big asian bookies don't ban you if you win, they use your sharp bets to improve their price accuracy. Not legal to bet on them if you're from the US though (land of the free??).
The biggest betting syndicates use platforms like Punterplay to place bets (often via API) at multiple bookies (Pinnacle, Singbet, SBObet, Betfair, Matchbook, 3ET, VX etc) at the same time.
In a somewhat ironic turn of events the more regulation you have, the worse it is for the customer. Big regulatory burdens require the bookies to extract more from the users, making the offerings more predatory. This is also why the likes of Kalshi can provide a better product to customers at the moment - because they ignore all the regulation.
The hot new interview question for 2025-2035 will not be:
- How many golf ball fit in a school bus?
Or the like that dominated Google hiring for nearly a decade. No the hot new interview question will be:
- Do you have an account with any of the major sports bettors in good standing?
The Goofus answer to this is : Yes, I can bet whatever I like with them (they are an idiot that doesn't understand how money works. Hire appropriately)
The Gallant answer is: No, I don't do sports betting. (This shows they at least know to lie about it)
The Galaxy answer is: No, they banned me (only sharps get banned, meaning they are either very lucky or very good with probabilities and numbers)
There exists now the potential for a small service company that can help interviewees and the spouses of gambling addicts: We'll make you look like a sharp to the sports betting companies. You sign up for the service and a big-time sharp takes over your accounts (or directs you personally) and tells you what to bet and where. They then give you the money to bet, making you effectively a mule for them. It's win-win. Real sharps get a mule, you get to look like a sharp and you have the proof. This also works for the family of addicts (probably the larger market), as their affected loved-one gets banned/downgraded and all the money stops flowing out of their accounts.
Ted Olson: who America listens to. Olson is a prominent constitutional lawyer who argued the case to repeal PASPA in the District Courts and Supreme Court. He was central to cases involving legalizing gay marriage, upholding the second amendment, and the landmark campaign financing ruling in Citizens United.
If we assume that these are all cases that he was on the winning side of, then good on him for the first one, but dude sure has a lot to answer for with the other ones and the case under discussion in this article.
I don't gamble but it is batshit insane how it is regulated. Deceptive and fraudulent advertising I get that. but it is a most natural right for a person to be an idiot and ruin themselves by gambling away all their money. Governments have no right or authority to stop us from being idiots if we want to be idiots.
This isn't even about democracy and liberties. Even monarchies and communist regimes have no right. First, it is tax revenue, second it does not harm or directly affect anyone other than the gambler in a negative way, third anti-gambling laws incentivize and enable criminal enterprises. Secret betting rings are usually operated by organized crime.
"You might be homeless or dependent on welfare if you lose all your money"... ok but society helping homeless and impoverished people does not give it the right to police everyone else. Don't help those people if you think they're gambling addicts or don't help them at all. Needed help that comes with sacrificing freedoms is slavery.
"People gamble away their family's money"... ok, then their family sounds like it has a problem that doesn't need governmental meddling. How about we regulate people that aren't ambitious enough to support their family as well. Money left on the table is money lost after all.
Even if less gambling is better for society as a whole, it still does not give society the right to infringe on individuals' ability to be idiots. It is better if people get married for example, that's why tax breaks for that exist (which i disagree with) but society doesn't go around regulating unmarried people or people who refuse to have children (much more harm to society that way than any gambling outbreak could ever cause!).
What do you think should governments get involved with?
I think it is the government's responsibility to protect those who can't defend themselves. Women beat by men. Employees being abused by their bosses. People getting robbed or conned.
I happen to be a somewhat big guy, at least compared to the average around where I live. Partially as a result of this I have never been mugged in my life. But that doesn't mean that I think that when someone gets mugged they don't need "government meddling". I know that other people are not like me. I don't call them "wimps" and say that "it's their right to be small" or that "they should have hit the gym more often".
Mental health issues are a bitch. Compulsive behavior issues suck. You sound like someone who doesn't have them. That's great! But hopefully you can understand that other people can have them. Calling them "idiots" is just a trick your brain does so that it can put a label on a problem so you don't have to think about it more deeply. I invite you to spend the 2 calories that it takes to look behind that label.
Hopefully you will find that gambling companies are naturally be incentivized to predate on people with mental health issues, who are a vulnerable group.
And that is why gambling needs to be heavily regulated, if not banned outright.
Can you please be any more dismissive and condescending?
First, I chose "idiots" carefully, if a person has a pre-existing condition or some other weakness, "idiot" excludes them as you've so obviously noted and they should be protected. However, if they chose to enter a life of addiction, fully being informed that even gambling once will addict them, they fall under the "idiot" category, although there are better terms to use and I'm being lazy with my wording there.
Your rant about the government protecting people and you not getting mugged has nothing to do with what I'm saying,that's false equivalency.
I have every right to enter a life of addiction and ruin myself, as do you. i have every right to get addicted and live a miserable and short life. it isn't a great idea, but it is none of your business either.
As I stated very clearly, banning and regulating harmful and deceptive practices by gambling companies is something I support fully. What insane is you thinking you have a right to prevent me from doing something that doesn't affect you in the least because you want to force yourself to being everyone's caretaker. There should be a term for this sickness, perhaps "hostile and performative empathy"?
Help those who can't help themselves and ask for help! You don't get to decide who can't help themselves unless they can't make decisions or communicate on their own. Sane adults can speak up for themselves and tell you if they need help. And your idea of help? what is it? throwing people in prison? that's what you're advocating, you understand why that's insane right? Short of murdering a person, that is the worst thing you can do to them, do you get that? When you say "banning" it must be enforced somehow. Or perhaps you think it will be a small fine, even if that was the case, what happens when gamblers who lost all their money can't pay a fine, other than imprisonment? Loan sharks to pay your fines, and a life of crime to pay the loansharks? Either way, it ends up in people being forced to participate in worse and worse crime and thus causing actual harm to others because of your unending empathy.
I return your invitation to spend a little more than 2 calories and think about what we're discussing here. Your nanny state beating people until they die for their own good.
50% of all men below 50 have an online sports betting account.
Hmmm .. you might have to back that stat up. I am guessing there are men who have several accounts and over counting is happening. Or that was just made up like 62% of all statistics.
I'm definitely skeptical of this. When my state legalized sports betting there was around 6 or 7 books that came online and they ALL had pretty juicy sign up bonuses, like "bet $5 and get $250 in free bets." Damn right I signed up for all those books to get the free bets and converted those into cash by doing safe moneyline bets.
I don't find it hard to believe at all. Here's an incredibly unscientific way of looking at it:
I'm 27. Among me and a hastily-assembled list of 14 of my male friends, 7 of us definitely have at least one sports betting account, 4 definitely don't, and I'm not sure about the other 4. I'd bet (heh) at least one of them has an account.
It might be more informative to see how many men actually use their sports betting accounts. Technically I have an account, but I haven't used it in over 2 years. Won a bet that the Heat would beat the Celtics in the conference finals, realized I was now net-positive by several hundred dollars, cashed out, and uninstalled the app. Never looked back.
I don't bet at all (excluding the financial markets), but I'm often surprised at how many of my relatives and people from all walks of life pull out their phone and fire up an online betting app. All men.
There's a difference between having an account and actually using it.
I suspect the amount of US men who regularly bet on sports is much, much lower.
That being said: I find sports extremely boring. If I had a lot of social pressure to watch sports, I'd probably gamble, just to keep the game interesting.
56 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 70.7 ms ] threadIf I had my way, everyone who has ever made a "why make it illegal/regulate it? People will just do it anyway."-style argument would be forced under penalty of law to write the above quote 300 times on a chalkboard.
Well, sports betting could have the same mechanism, where you are only allowed to bet an amount proportional to your line of credit.
If the banks don't trust you to spend over that limit and honour your debt, why should betting houses be any different?
One of them is gambling.
The other is modern marketing.
Combined, they represent a substantial harm.
With nearly all of our social agency - which in our society means money - already in the possession of a tiny fraction of the country, with the bottom half of the country having approximately zero savings and spending at least as much as they have income? Any revenue gleaned from their dysfunctional attitude becomes a collective hardship, money that needs to be replaced by some form of subsidy to maintain our quality of life and avoid spillover problems like property crime.
My charitable interpretation is that it's a way for fans to feel more invested in the game. When their team wins they also do.
In 1992, when the innocuously named “Proposition A” finally passed, these monstrous “riverboat casinos” were built all along the Missouri riverfront.
He said before he died, “it’s funny, once it passed, there weren’t any more votes on it”.
And that’s how this stuff becomes legal.
There is just too much money to be made in that space. It's sickening.
And with apps on phones, it's 24/7 for some people. They get sucked in and gamed like babies bums in talc powder.
And it started with Twitch now. Kids get addicted watching these rigged players and believe they too can get rich doing it. It's a form of opioid legalised because the government gets the kick back.
These books also market what are the hardest to understand and worst bets to consumers. Think 4 way parlays. Like all 4 legs seem reasonable. They probably on their own each have a 70 pct probability. But that means a 24 pct of hitting. Of course they are all over props because people love to bet over. They are taking advantage of the fact that most people don't understand expected value or odds of multiple independent things happening
I'm not from US, I'm from EU but I'm still paranoid of that so I only sports bet at state owned lottery/betting company.
It is not true that you get banned if you win too often, but it is true that you get banned, and flagged, if your winning patterns are suspicious.
It's essentially like in a casino. You can win more than once and big, good for you.
But if patterns emerge, you get banned.
E.g. Betting small sums on football and suddenly betting very big on a specific baseball game and winning. Do it few times and you're banned as it's obviously strange.
In a somewhat ironic turn of events the more regulation you have, the worse it is for the customer. Big regulatory burdens require the bookies to extract more from the users, making the offerings more predatory. This is also why the likes of Kalshi can provide a better product to customers at the moment - because they ignore all the regulation.
- How many golf ball fit in a school bus?
Or the like that dominated Google hiring for nearly a decade. No the hot new interview question will be:
- Do you have an account with any of the major sports bettors in good standing?
The Goofus answer to this is : Yes, I can bet whatever I like with them (they are an idiot that doesn't understand how money works. Hire appropriately)
The Gallant answer is: No, I don't do sports betting. (This shows they at least know to lie about it)
The Galaxy answer is: No, they banned me (only sharps get banned, meaning they are either very lucky or very good with probabilities and numbers)
There exists now the potential for a small service company that can help interviewees and the spouses of gambling addicts: We'll make you look like a sharp to the sports betting companies. You sign up for the service and a big-time sharp takes over your accounts (or directs you personally) and tells you what to bet and where. They then give you the money to bet, making you effectively a mule for them. It's win-win. Real sharps get a mule, you get to look like a sharp and you have the proof. This also works for the family of addicts (probably the larger market), as their affected loved-one gets banned/downgraded and all the money stops flowing out of their accounts.
US gov exist to serve corporate, and their people let them do it
If we assume that these are all cases that he was on the winning side of, then good on him for the first one, but dude sure has a lot to answer for with the other ones and the case under discussion in this article.
This isn't even about democracy and liberties. Even monarchies and communist regimes have no right. First, it is tax revenue, second it does not harm or directly affect anyone other than the gambler in a negative way, third anti-gambling laws incentivize and enable criminal enterprises. Secret betting rings are usually operated by organized crime.
"You might be homeless or dependent on welfare if you lose all your money"... ok but society helping homeless and impoverished people does not give it the right to police everyone else. Don't help those people if you think they're gambling addicts or don't help them at all. Needed help that comes with sacrificing freedoms is slavery.
"People gamble away their family's money"... ok, then their family sounds like it has a problem that doesn't need governmental meddling. How about we regulate people that aren't ambitious enough to support their family as well. Money left on the table is money lost after all.
Even if less gambling is better for society as a whole, it still does not give society the right to infringe on individuals' ability to be idiots. It is better if people get married for example, that's why tax breaks for that exist (which i disagree with) but society doesn't go around regulating unmarried people or people who refuse to have children (much more harm to society that way than any gambling outbreak could ever cause!).
I think it is the government's responsibility to protect those who can't defend themselves. Women beat by men. Employees being abused by their bosses. People getting robbed or conned.
I happen to be a somewhat big guy, at least compared to the average around where I live. Partially as a result of this I have never been mugged in my life. But that doesn't mean that I think that when someone gets mugged they don't need "government meddling". I know that other people are not like me. I don't call them "wimps" and say that "it's their right to be small" or that "they should have hit the gym more often".
Mental health issues are a bitch. Compulsive behavior issues suck. You sound like someone who doesn't have them. That's great! But hopefully you can understand that other people can have them. Calling them "idiots" is just a trick your brain does so that it can put a label on a problem so you don't have to think about it more deeply. I invite you to spend the 2 calories that it takes to look behind that label.
Hopefully you will find that gambling companies are naturally be incentivized to predate on people with mental health issues, who are a vulnerable group.
And that is why gambling needs to be heavily regulated, if not banned outright.
First, I chose "idiots" carefully, if a person has a pre-existing condition or some other weakness, "idiot" excludes them as you've so obviously noted and they should be protected. However, if they chose to enter a life of addiction, fully being informed that even gambling once will addict them, they fall under the "idiot" category, although there are better terms to use and I'm being lazy with my wording there.
Your rant about the government protecting people and you not getting mugged has nothing to do with what I'm saying,that's false equivalency.
I have every right to enter a life of addiction and ruin myself, as do you. i have every right to get addicted and live a miserable and short life. it isn't a great idea, but it is none of your business either.
As I stated very clearly, banning and regulating harmful and deceptive practices by gambling companies is something I support fully. What insane is you thinking you have a right to prevent me from doing something that doesn't affect you in the least because you want to force yourself to being everyone's caretaker. There should be a term for this sickness, perhaps "hostile and performative empathy"?
Help those who can't help themselves and ask for help! You don't get to decide who can't help themselves unless they can't make decisions or communicate on their own. Sane adults can speak up for themselves and tell you if they need help. And your idea of help? what is it? throwing people in prison? that's what you're advocating, you understand why that's insane right? Short of murdering a person, that is the worst thing you can do to them, do you get that? When you say "banning" it must be enforced somehow. Or perhaps you think it will be a small fine, even if that was the case, what happens when gamblers who lost all their money can't pay a fine, other than imprisonment? Loan sharks to pay your fines, and a life of crime to pay the loansharks? Either way, it ends up in people being forced to participate in worse and worse crime and thus causing actual harm to others because of your unending empathy.
I return your invitation to spend a little more than 2 calories and think about what we're discussing here. Your nanny state beating people until they die for their own good.
I'm 27. Among me and a hastily-assembled list of 14 of my male friends, 7 of us definitely have at least one sports betting account, 4 definitely don't, and I'm not sure about the other 4. I'd bet (heh) at least one of them has an account.
It might be more informative to see how many men actually use their sports betting accounts. Technically I have an account, but I haven't used it in over 2 years. Won a bet that the Heat would beat the Celtics in the conference finals, realized I was now net-positive by several hundred dollars, cashed out, and uninstalled the app. Never looked back.
I don't bet at all (excluding the financial markets), but I'm often surprised at how many of my relatives and people from all walks of life pull out their phone and fire up an online betting app. All men.
I suspect the amount of US men who regularly bet on sports is much, much lower.
That being said: I find sports extremely boring. If I had a lot of social pressure to watch sports, I'd probably gamble, just to keep the game interesting.