NYT: Don't bet against expansion of sports betting in USA

[The Buzz]

The editorial board of the New York Times gives a brief explanation of the 1992 law that makes sports betting outside of a few states in the U.S. illegal, but says that may be changing as politicians watch New Jersey lead the way against the law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/op...r-beaters.html

[linkagency]

Thanks for the news buddy.

[Moonlight Cat]

Thanks for this information.

[LukeC]

I don't understand them thinking that allowing sports betting in New Jersey would corrupt sports when it's already allowed in the other 4 states. If it was a blanket ban (which wouldn't be a good thing) there'd at least be a (flawed) logic that it could cause corruption.

[TheGooner]

I don't understand the preoccupation with sports betting and the volume of bets being negative given that the business of sports at both the college and pro level is a multi-billion dollar industry ... even if the student athletes don't get paid. (it is not an amateur sport - it's huge business!)

I also don't why the medium of placing the bet (being online) makes it more likely for corruption when compared to telephone betting or physical betting at a casino?

Finally, I don't understand why placing a sports bet in a market that will usually only have 5-6% overround (juice or vig to US players) is worse for punters than betting on horses (usually at least 10% juice) or a state lottery with as much as 20% juice attached.

[vinism]

I don't understand the preoccupation with sports betting and the volume of bets being negative given that the business of sports at both the college and pro level is a multi-billion dollar industry ... even if the student athletes don't get paid. (it is not an amateur sport - it's huge business!)

I also don't why the medium of placing the bet (being online) makes it more likely for corruption when compared to telephone betting or physical betting at a casino?

Finally, I don't understand why placing a sports bet in a market that will usually only have 5-6% overround (juice or vig to US players) is worse for punters than betting on horses (usually at least 10% juice) or a state lottery with as much as 20% juice attached.

Believe it or not, and as silly as it sounds, this all goes back to the 1919 Black Sox scandal, where noted mobster Arnold Rothstein (he was one of the most notorious in the history of the U.S.) fixed the World Series.

The fact that baseball, America's pastime, had been tainted created an almost reflexive anti-sports betting reflex in America's culture. So betting on horse racing was OK, because it had been happening forever. But betting on baseball or other sports was verboten.

This reflex is a dictated public policy for almost a century, and it's just now getting to the point where the public is completely comfortable with public betting on sports -- even thought it's been happening underground throughout this time.

Much of this is generational. The younger the person, the more accepting they are of sports betting, regardless of medium. The older the person, the more uncomfortable they are. And of course, the older generations -- who are still making policy -- are extremely distrustful of gambling over the phone and via the Internet. Of course, their kids and grandkids are creating their playlists on their iPods, so they don't really get technology anyway. But hey, these are the lawmakers.

[TheGooner]

Understand the words - but I'm still struggling with the principal.

The US was at the forefront of early interent adoption with online banking, online retailing, online broking, online social networds etc, etc, but somehow with gambling it's verbotten.

The US has sports betting in casinos - and the lines are published in major papers throughout the US - what is it about the internet that makes it wrong?

[vinism]

The principles don't necessarily make sense from a logical standpoint. And I'm in firm agreement that there's a high level of hypocrisy going on here. But I'll do my best to put this in a U.S. cultural/historical perspective at which point you might still want to bang your head on a brick wall, but you'll at least understand why.

The earliest forms of casino gambling -- as we know it now -- in the U.S. happened on the western frontier. As the U.S. expanded from the Atlantic to the Pacific, organized gambling took place largely on river boats and new towns and cities that didn't have organized civil institutions, like police, town councils and mayors. When civil society reached these frontier towns, gambling (along with brothels and other dens of sin) was generally outlawed. As new frontiers opened up, gambling moved into those spots, only to be banned (for the most part) when civil society took over.

In 1909, Nevada actually outlawed gambling. It legalized it in 1931. And for a long time, it was the only state in the country with legal casino -- and legal sports betting. New Jersey legalized casinos in 1976, but it's first one didn't open until 1978 in Atlantic City. And until the late 80s and early 90s, Nevada and Atlantic City were really the only two places of note where you could go to gamble legally. And the Atlantic City casinos didn't offer sports betting. The only state offering single-game sports wagering (a couple offered parlay or teaser cards) was Nevada. Even as gambling expanded in the 1990s and 2000s to other states (yes, it took that long for the rest of the country to start getting in on the action), sports betting was never offered in those casinos. And in 1992, of course, it was banned by federal law.

So there's just no history of legal sports betting in the U.S. outside of Nevada. There's massive history of underground sports betting. But none of legal. That's what makes this an interesting moment in American gaming history. For the first time, there's extensive public support for legalizing betting on sports. The primary factors driving this are:

1. Cultural acceptance of sports betting. As TheGooner noted, odds are published in every newspaper and openly discussed on radio, TV and the Internet. This isn't something "just for gamblers" anymore. It's part of the social consumption of sports. "What's the Vegas" line is a phrase heard often in the discussion of sporting events. People know that sports betting is out there. It doesn't bother them. It's part of the regular discussion of sports. And they accept it now.

2. Online sports betting. Most people of a certain age know someone who bets on sports online. As a result, betting on sports, online or with a bookie, doesn't feel or seem taboo.

3. Younger generations really like to bet on sports. If you look at Generations X, Y and the millennials, they really like to bet on sports. They've grown up with easy access to gambling information and data, and it's a normal part of their lives.

4. Fantasy sports. Hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars change hands every in fantasy sports. Fantasy sports is a massive, massive business. And though legally "not gambling," most practitioners don't see any (or much of) a difference between what they do and betting on sports. So the cultural acceptance of sports betting has grown tremendously as a result of that as well.

And that brings us back to the questions TheGooner posed: What is it about the Internet that makes gambling, or betting on sports wrong?

Nothing, really. The reality of the situation is the U.S. has undergone a truly massive gambling expansion in the last 20 years, going from essentially two locations to gamble to the ability to gamble in casinos in most states. For gambling opponents, fighting online gambling is the latest battle in a war that they've been losing. Then there's the segment of people who have been uncomfortable the massive expansion of gambling, but went along with it for revenue purposes. For them, opposing online gambling is a way for them to feel better about themselves. They grabbed the money from the land-based expansion, even though they weren't comfortable with it. And then returned to their comfort zone regarding online gaming.

Hope this context helps.

[ocreditor]

Great news.
Are the legislators hoping to profit from taxing sports betting or have they simply given up on fighting it (= a waste of money and resources in a losing battle) ?
Cause I don't see how people are going to change their betting habits by adding a tax to their bets or something such.