OT: - Supreme Court-States can legalize sports betting | Page 2 | The Boneyard

OT: Supreme Court-States can legalize sports betting

XLCenterFan said:
Let's start a pool as to when and where the first betting spot in CT will be. I'm guessing at an OTB.

Also, throw a betting location in the XL Center and Buffalo Wild Wings. Maybe in the club houses of local golf courses!
Expand ...
I have a client who owns a restaurant which also has an OTB within it. We are currently designing a renovation as he is definitely gearing up for sports betting.
 
XLCenterFan said:
Is this sarcastic or not? If not, I totally disagree. I would say way more people smoke weed than gamble, and the long-term ramifications of someone who gets hooked on weed at young age can last forever. Think about it-growing up, what did people do first? Weed or bet sports? I would say weed. And those people were way more likely to try other things. People start betting usually at an older age, when the brain is more developed. It can be addicting as well, but the likelihood of sports betting being the reason your life falls apart or stalls, is not as high as the chance that you don't live up to your potential due to puffing away at a young age.
Expand ...
I'll never understand how someone can still be this uninformed even with all the information available today
 
Last edited:
Vegas is livid about this. There is no question that Vegas has made itself a destination for gambling and non-gambling, but it's all a big house of cards. Those gigantic places need visitors and sports books were a big draw. How many here have taken trips with their boys to gamble, hit steak houses and gentleman's clubs, etc? Even if you didn't lose in the sports book, you spent a lot on food and other entertainment. Closer legal sports gambling gives you another reason to take that trip elsewhere. Vegas will lose visitors and they now lose leverage. There are other voices in the space. The pro sports leagues have already said they want a cut. The states will all say no, but those leagues have impressive people working for them and someone will come up with a way (either legally or politically) for the leagues to get their cut.

Re weed vs. gambling, I fully believe that if both were made legal, gambling would negatively impact significantly more lives than marijuana. That includes not only the user/gambler, but also the collateral damage. The most chronic pot smoker will still function in life and the product will not be expensive enough to result in destitution and crime. There doesn't seem to be any evidence to believe that legalized pot would change society anymore than alcohol. I believe easier, legal access to gambling will result in lost life savings, crimes to compensate for losses, and eventual return to black market betting. I'm still okay with the legalization.
 
@Chuck

It's outrageous the professional leagues think they deserve a cut. If they get their way the vig you will be paying is going to be so outrageous the black market books will be doing better than they can imagine
 
It's not even in the same stratosphere in regards to marijuana vs gambling. Gambling ruins lives and families if it gets out of control. Marijuana you may not reach your potential and you may gain a few pounds.
 
.-.
This is a college hoop board and somehow the legalized gambling debate has morphed into a discussion of the long term health benefits of pot and analyzing demographic data to win most detrimental impact on lives theory?

I think there is a real good chance that legalized sports betting brings us closer to paying NCAA athletes and/or helps bring down the NCAA. The NCAA and schools are able to box out players from TV and advertising revenues and came up with not using players actual likeness as the forearm to the chest in this box out. And there simply no way to get to the rim from there, players cannot sell their own likeness or access TV or advertising dollars in any meaningful way (signing autographs is about it and its small potatoes)

But these gambling revenues are big, widespread & likely more insidious $$ and when the large stakes become known it'll be very hard to have players living modest college existences not try to cash in. Previously a gambling conspiracy needed to involve lots of people, most of whom were criminals. Now you can essentially do it yourself or with one other person involved tops. Way easier and way harder to catch or prove.

Similarly refs in all sports pro or college are going to be really tempted. Need to study how they keep things on the up and up in other countries.
 
I agree Dogdeacon...let's keep the chat here to the Christie v. NCAA ruling, and how CT will be affected by the repeal of the sports betting prohibition. I apologize for the derailment.
 
In Europe, where betting on soccer and tennis matches has been legal for years now, they actually uncover betting scandals through the legal betting markets. When too much money is on one side, or when a random match gets above-average wagers/bet totals, they look into it.
 
methodology said:
It's outrageous the professional leagues think they deserve a cut. If they get their way the vig you will be paying is going to be so outrageous the black market books will be doing better than they can imagine
Expand ...

The NBA is calling it an "integrity fee". And what they are asking for is outrageous.
 
Devland said:
I have no problem with legalizing weed. I only have two requests. A. Like alcohol, please do not drive when you are under the influence. There are plenty of people who are stone sober that are bad drivers. You don't need weed or alcohol to slow your reactions and make you a worse driver. B. Like cigarette smokers, respect others, Do not expose non-smokers to your second hand smoke. As for the health effects of long term pot smoking, I have no scientific evidence, just antidotal, but I am 64 years old and know three people who smoked weed every day since I've known them. All three have had strokes. Two are in wheelchairs as a result from their strokes.
Expand ...
The amount of people driving stoned will be no different when its legalized. I don't think people realize how many people aleeady smoke weed. I'd say it's 70% of the people I know under 30 and 40% of the people I know over 30.
 
.-.
I think we need to have a transparent, competitive process to allow private companies to compete for sports betting operations. Malloy may be calling the legislators back this week for a special session to address it (the legislative session ended May 9). If CT Lotto and the casinos are the only people involved they will likely bungle it. While it should be allowed at Foxwoods and Mohegan, they should not be granted sole/monopolistic ownership. I think it needs to be a combination of the casinos, OTB's and places like Bobby V's, and that they should also have apps, so that we don't have to drive somewhere just to place a wager. I really hope they get people who understand what bettors want and need involved. If we end up getting taxed on winnings of any size (minus losses obviously), or getting lines with vigs higher than -110, the black market will thrive. I also hope we don't get 1099's for winnings below at least 5K, as is the case for poker tournament winnings at the Woods/Sun.
 
XLCenterFan said:
I think we need to have a transparent, competitive process to allow private companies to compete for sports betting operations. Malloy may be calling the legislators back this week for a special session to address it (the legislative session ended May 9). If CT Lotto and the casinos are the only people involved they will likely bungle it. While it should be allowed at Foxwoods and Mohegan, they should not be granted sole/monopolistic ownership. I think it needs to be a combination of the casinos, OTB's and places like Bobby V's, and that they should also have apps, so that we don't have to drive somewhere just to place a wager. I really hope they get people who understand what bettors want and need involved. If we end up getting taxed on winnings of any size (minus losses obviously), or getting lines with vigs higher than -110, the black market will thrive. I also hope we don't get 1099's for winnings below at least 5K, as is the case for poker tournament winnings at the Woods/Sun.
Expand ...
"The threshold for which gambling winnings must be reported to the IRS varies based on the type of game. At a horse track, you must report any winnings that exceed either $600 or 300 times your initial wager. For slot machines and bingo, you are required to report all winnings in excess of $1,200. In a poker tournament, you must report winnings above $5,000."

I completely agree that CT Lottery would ruin sports gambling. Casinos and OTB would handle the administration far more effectively and efficiently. The State should then tax them accordingly as they already do.

BTW, both MJ and gambling should be made available.
 
Last edited:
JMick said:
The amount of people driving stoned will be no different when its legalized. I don't think people realize how many people aleeady smoke weed. I'd say it's 70% of the people I know under 30 and 40% of the people I know over 30.
Expand ...

People like to equate pot with alcohol, but in regards to driving while under the influence they are not the same. As everyone knows, driving ability decreases significantly with alcohol use, and that's why there are such strong penalties for drunk driving.

Pot, on the other hand, does not impair a person's driving ability nearly as much as alcohol does.
 
huskyjawz said:
People like to equate pot with alcohol, but in regards to driving while under the influence they are not the same. As everyone knows, driving ability decreases significantly with alcohol use, and that's why there are such strong penalties for drunk driving.

Pot, on the other hand, does not impair a person's driving ability nearly as much as alcohol does.
Expand ...
I still don't think people should drive when high. I do not drink and drive or smoke and drive. It's too easy to get an Uber or just plan appropriately
 
huskyjawz said:
People like to equate pot with alcohol, but in regards to driving while under the influence they are not the same. As everyone knows, driving ability decreases significantly with alcohol use, and that's why there are such strong penalties for drunk driving.

Pot, on the other hand, does not impair a person's driving ability nearly as much as alcohol does.
Expand ...

There was a study done about 10 years ago by Yale or Quinnipiac, I believe, and the participants who were given actual weed vs the ones who were given a placebo rated as better drivers. The study said they drove slower and more cautious from what I remember.

Also it's somewhat difficult to conclude if someone is stoned while driving because it stays in your system so long. You can be sober and fail a drug test for weed you smoked 2-4 weeks prior
 
.-.
Husky25 said:
"The threshold for which gambling winnings must be reported to the IRS varies based on the type of game. At a horse track, you must report any winnings that exceed either $600 or 300 times your initial wager. For slot machines and bingo, you are required to report all winnings in excess of $1,200. In a poker tournament, you must report winnings above $5,000."
Expand ...

I'm not sure this is right. I believe it's "you must report any winnings that exceed either $600 AND 300 times your initial wager". Nobody reports wins over $600. that don't meet the 300-1 threshold.
 
There is a legal distinction, but to me there is no difference between a DUI, DWI, or OUI. Under the influence of an intoxicant is under the influence of an intoxicant. If one is caught, One needs to suffer the consequences. Done and done.
 
Waquoit said:
I'm not sure this is right. I believe it's "you must report any winnings that exceed either $600 AND 300 times your initial wager". Nobody reports wins over $600. that don't meet the 300-1 threshold.
Expand ...
It was a straight copy and paste from investopedia. The general rule to be issued a 1099-misc. is any nongovernmental or incorporated vendor who performs $600 worth of services in the tax year.

BTW, normally $600 is the minimum one can win on a single bet that pays off at 300x. The minimum bet at the races, as I recall, is $2.00. However, I agree that if someone wins over $600 over the span of multiple races with cash betting, those winnings are more than likely not being reported.
 
Not sure how it works at OTB, but in the CT/AC poker rooms, you get a 1099 for any wins over $5K, and the casinos report it to the IRS. However, this is only for tournaments and poker room-related jackpots, not cash games. For example: If you play in a tourney with a $400 buy-in and cash for anything above $5,401, you're getting a 1099. They don't take the taxes out, you must report it yourself. Now, if you have yearly losses to write off against that, up to the amount you've won, you won't pay taxes, but if you don't have losses, you will owe taxes. However, there are no tax reports for cash games. Say you buy into a 5-10 NL cash game for $1K, and cash out for $7K, there will be no record and no IRS reporting. I spent almost all of my 20's in East Coast poker rooms, but never won anything significant on the horses, so I do not know how that works. Technically, you're supposed to report any income, at any amount (minus losses if it is gambling income) but no one does, and as long as no 1099 is issued, no one checks.
 
Last edited:
Husky25 said:
I completely agree that CT Lottery would ruin sports gambling. Casinos and OTB would handle the administration far more effectively and efficiently. The State should then tax them accordingly as they already do.

BTW, both MJ and gambling should be made available.
Expand ...

Why would the CT Lottery ruin sports gambling? And how would they ruin it?

Asking for a friend.
 
.-.
Husky25 said:
It was a straight copy and paste from investopedia. The general rule to be issued a 1099-misc. is any nongovernmental or incorporated vendor who performs $600 worth of services in the tax year.
BTW, normally $600 is the minimum one can win on a single bet that pays off at 300x. The minimum bet at the races, as I recall, is $2.00. However, I agree that if someone wins over $600 over the span of multiple races with cash betting, those winnings are more than likely not being reported.
Expand ...

It might be out-of-date. The IRS changed the reporting rule recently. Before if you hit 3 number tribox that paid $650, it was reportable. And by reportable, I mean it gets reported before you get paid. Now it's not reported because the 300-1 test is applied to the total bet (in this case a box with six combinations), not just that one winning bet that was a part of the total ticket. And these days, the minimum bet for some wagers is only a dime.
 
So XLcenterfan has slotted in nicely to replace whalers gambling addiction. The timing is uncanny
 
JMick said:
So XLcenterfan has slotted in nicely to replace whalers gambling addiction. The timing is uncanny
Expand ...

Please elaborate, I am new here...just a Boneyard rookie.
 
Waquoit said:
It might be out-of-date. The IRS changed the reporting rule recently. Before if you hit 3 number tribox that paid $650, it was reportable. And by reportable, I mean it gets reported before you get paid. Now it's not reported because the 300-1 test is applied to the total bet (in this case a box with six combinations), not just that one winning bet that was a part of the total ticket. And these days, the minimum bet for some wagers is only a dime.
Expand ...

When did that change? Granted, I haven't been to the track in some time, but the minimum bet was always $2.00, even at the SAM sites. I also thought that even though it is a single transaction for speed simplicity sake, a box bet is actually 6 distinct wagers. Finally, if someone is betting $0.10, they have problems that Gamblers' Anonymous can't handle and this whole thread should be moot to them.

As I said, it was a straight copy and paste from Investopedia, However, according to instructions for IRS form W2-G (which is probably where I should have gone in the first place):

Reportable Gambling Winnings

Report gambling winnings on Form W-2G if:

1. The winnings (not reduced by the wager) are $1,200 or more from a bingo game or slot machine,
2. The winnings (reduced by the wager) are $1,500 or more from a keno game,
3. The winnings (reduced by the wager or buy-in) are more than $5,000 from a poker tournament,
4. The winnings (except winnings from bingo, slot machines, keno, and poker tournaments) reduced, at the option of the payer, by the wager are: a. $600 or more, and b. At least 300 times the amount of the wager, or
5. The winnings are subject to federal income tax withholding (either regular gambling withholding or backup withholding).
 
Last edited:
T-Squared said:
Why would the CT Lottery ruin sports gambling? And how would they ruin it?

Asking for a friend.
Expand ...
My friend wants to know if your friend works for the Connecticut Lottery Corporation.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,349
Messages
4,566,531
Members
10,469
Latest member
xxBlueChips


Top Bottom