OT: - Supreme Court-States can legalize sports betting | Page 3 | The Boneyard

OT: Supreme Court-States can legalize sports betting

Husky25 said:
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.
Expand ...

10-cent bets are only for superfectas, pick 6's and similarly extreme longshots. You cannot place a 10-cent win/place/show bet or trifecta box.
 
XLCenterFan said:
Please elaborate, I am new here...just a Boneyard rookie.
Expand ...
Whaler11 is/was a jerk who I enjoyed quite a lot. He bet sports a lot so people would call him a gambling addict to rib on him or after he insulted them. You have stepped up and taken his place for gambling talk. He's either suspended or banned as of a couple days ago
 
XLCenterFan said:
10-cent bets are only for superfectas, pick 6's and similarly extreme longshots. You cannot place a 10-cent win/place/show bet or trifecta box.
Expand ...
Good grief. What's the point? Although a Superfecta Box at $0.10 would actually cost $2.40...but still.
 
JMick said:
Whaler11 is/was a jerk who I enjoyed quite a lot. He bet sports a lot so people would call him a gambling addict to rib on him or after he insulted them. You have stepped up and taken his place for gambling talk. He's either suspended or banned as of a couple days ago
Expand ...

Wow, you're right, my timing has been impeccable. I can assure you I am level-headed, will not be a jerk, and I'd rather laugh at myself than someone else. I do love me some sports/poker/golf gambling though! I can also assure you I am not him-I am a Bruins fan.
 
JMick said:
Whaler11 is/was a jerk who I enjoyed quite a lot. He bet sports a lot so people would call him a gambling addict to rib on him or after he insulted them. You have stepped up and taken his place for gambling talk. He's either suspended or banned as of a couple days ago
Expand ...
In fairness to Whaler, there are many other, and far worse, jerks than he on all of the boards.
 
.-.
Husky25 said:
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,
Expand ...

Yeah, that "and" was the thing for me. And I think the rule change came last fall.
 
Husky25 said:
BTW, both MJ and gambling should be made available.
Expand ...

They are here! Living in Nevada is great. Oh yeah, hookers too. All within 15 minutes of my front door.
 
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 ...

And, yet, the penalties for court convictions of driving under the influence of marijuana are literally the same, as referenced under state statute 14-227a(g).
 
Last edited:
Husky25 said:
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.
Expand ...

No. There is not a legal distinction, at least not in Connecticut. They fall under the same statute.
 
.-.
Does anyone else think this will renew the push to legalize on-line poker? Man I miss Sundays on PokerStars-awesome events. Although, my wife did say she may not have married me if on-line poker was still around! Just like Saturdays are for the boys, Sundays were for watching sports while playing PokerStars tourneys. If sports betting will be allowed, and we will have the ability to wager on-line or through an app, then other skill-based internet wagering (which both are) should be allowed as well.
 
Chuck said:
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.
Expand ...
Vegas is an outdated model.
 
methodology said:
Don't see how the state won't allow them to offer it.

Vegas is irate with this decision. Will be interesting what happens to Vegas in 10-15 years
Expand ...

Vegas will continue to boom. It’s the entertainment capital of the world. You think it’s going to fall apart because other states will be able to allow sports gambling? Vegas has evolved and the high end dining, night clubs, pool parties are much of the focus now. The hockey team did incredible there this year and so will the NFL team. Las Vegas will continue to thrive.
 
Showballot said:
Vegas will continue to boom. It’s the entertainment capital of the world. You think it’s going to fall apart because other states will be able to allow sports gambling? Vegas has evolved and the high end dining, night clubs, pool parties are much of the focus now. The hockey team did incredible there this year and so will the NFL team. Las Vegas will continue to thrive.
Expand ...

Still annoyed the Raiders are going there. Just leave them in Oakland. Put one of the LA teams in Vegas. Won't be an NFL team in LA in 10 years anyway. Those people don't care.
 
intlzncster said:
Still annoyed the Raiders are going there. Just leave them in Oakland. Put one of the LA teams in Vegas. Won't be an NFL team in LA in 10 years anyway. Those people don't care.
Expand ...
But there is no better marriage in football than the Raiders and Las Vegas. Talk about two things being made for each other.
 
Vegas will see a slight dip in their sportsbook revenues, but that's been happening for years now. They have apps there too, so people don't even have to go to the casino. I went there twice, once was in the summer and the sportbooks were desolate, but the other time was during NCAA basketball conference tourney week, and the places were jammed. Sports make up such a small share of their business, they won't feel much. They must have seen an uptick from NHL though, and will see another one once the Raiders are in town. They will be fine.
 
.-.
jleves said:
But there is no better marriage in football than the Raiders and Las Vegas. Talk about two things being made for each other.
Expand ...
Disagree. Have you ever been Oakland? Vegas is far too glitzy. The Raiders belong in Oakland.
 
JMick said:
I can't tag him in posts so it's not looking good
Expand ...

Don't sweat any longer JMick. Whaler is in the house.

I have to say I'm fairly impressed this thread wasn't totally butchered.

The state is going to have to bring in a William Hill type company to run the operations. They suck in some ways but they have the experience, scale and technology to move quickly.

I think the impact is being overstated by a lot of people.

1. The impact to Vegas is zero.
2. The number of new players isn't going to be as big as some seem to think. If you wanted to get bets down the barriers aren't too high.
3. The margins on running a sports book aren't that high. The state needs to make money and WH needs to make money and it's somewhat expensive to administer - are they really going to be able to offer a competitive product? Can they get to -110 lines even? The offshores may still have a more compelling offering.
4. We just saw the DFS sites try something similar. They burned a ton of cash to gain new customers and very quickly people soured on the product. Only 1-2% of people are going to win (and William Hill et al will try to limit them), a lot of people touch the stove learn quickly they are just flushing money down the toilet and give up quickly. That's what you saw at the DFS sites. The average person had no chance of winning.
5. Not offering credit is going to provide local bookmakers that advantage still - and your local doesn't send you 1099s on the rare occasion you win.
6. I don't see how this is going to drive huge TV ratings - are there really that many people who would be compelled to bet on Cincinnati/Cleveland on Thursday night and weren't doing it before? This new population of people is going to drive big incremental ratings? Seems to me the good news for TV is the advertising dollars that are going to flow in just like DFS - but should be bigger and stick around longer.

Don't count out Orrin Hatch and co ruining everything too.
 
Nice to meet you Whaler11! I heard you were the resident BY sports bettor. Add me to your crew! It sounds like we are very similar. In fact, in your absence, some thought that I was you, with a new handle.
 
XLCenterFan said:
Nice to meet you Whaler11! I heard you were the resident BY sports bettor. Add me to your crew! It sounds like we are very similar. In fact, in your absence, some thought that I was you, with a new handle.
Expand ...

Nobody truly made that mistake. Argument styles are totally different. If you are on the wrong side of a whaler opinion he's

giphy.gif
 
.-.
intlzncster said:
Complete denial. Provides too much extra context.

That is totally the Q. Gambling scrub.
Expand ...

You got me.

I also bet on first NBA player to cause a sneak tying time out, first baseball player to break a bat, and first 3rd base coach to scratch himself in a given game.
 
Artest probably confused $3,500 for $35K. And I'm pretty sure you can't even bet $35K in a Vegas casino without them doing a background check on you or something. For places to accept a bet of $10K or more, you will need to be interviewed by the sports book director or some higher up.
 
.-.
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