What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Article In The Atlantic: Legalizing Sports Gambling Was A Huge Mistake (1 Viewer)

Joe Bryant

Guide
Staff member
Last edited:
Article:

Legalizing Sports Gambling Was a Huge Mistake​

The evidence is convincing: The betting industry is ruining lives.
By Charles Fain Lehman

Over the weekend, millions of Americans watched football. They cheered, they ate, and—more than ever—they gambled. The American Gaming Association expects $35 billion in bets to be placed on NFL games in 2024, about one-third more than last year’s total.

If you follow sports, gambling is everywhere. Ads for it are all over broadcasts; more than one in three Americans now bets on sports, according to a Seton Hall poll. Before 2018, sports gambling was prohibited almost everywhere. Now it’s legal in 38 states and the District of Columbia, yielding $10 billion a year in revenue.

Readers may be quick to dismiss these developments as harmless. Many sports fans enjoy betting on the game, they say. Is it such a big deal if they do it with a company rather than their friends?

A growing body of social-science literature suggests that, yes, this is in fact quite different. The rise of sports gambling has caused a wave of financial and familial misery, one that falls disproportionately on the most economically precarious households. Six years into the experiment, the evidence is convincing: Legalizing sports gambling was a huge mistake.

Starting in 1992, sports betting was generally banned throughout most of the United States under the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act. PASPA forbade running gambling “schemes” tied to competitive sports. Americans could still make bets with one another about Super Bowl results, but neither government nor businesses could get a cut of the action.

That approach held until 2012, when New Jersey, fearing that Atlantic City was losing its competitive edge, legalized sports gambling. The NCAA brought suit, alleging a violation of PASPA; the state responded that PASPA itself was an infringement on its sovereignty. The case came before the Supreme Court, which in 2018 ruled that PASPA violated the Tenth Amendment’s prohibition on the federal government exercising powers reserved for the states.

With PASPA gone, states were eager to let sportsbooks set up shop. Within a year and a half, Goldman Sachs estimated, Americans were betting about $50 million a month. By late 2023, that figure exceeded $1 billion a month—a 20-fold increase.

Because different states legalized sports gambling at different times, social scientists can compare different measures of well-being in states that did legalize with those that did not, before and after legalization.

Alarming patterns have started to emerge. Two recent working papers look at the economic impacts of legalization. One, by Northwestern University’s Scott Baker and colleagues, finds that legal sports gambling depletes households’ savings. Specifically, for every $1 spent on betting, households put $2 less into investment accounts. States see big increases in the risk of overdrafting a bank account or maxing out a credit card. These effects are strongest among already precarious households.

A second paper, from the economists Brett Hollenbeck of UCLA and Poet Larsen and Davide Proserpio of the University of Southern California, tells a similar story. Looking specifically at online sports gambling, they find that legalization increases the risk that a household goes bankrupt by 25 to 30 percent, and increases debt delinquency. These problems seem to concentrate among young men living in low-income counties—further evidence that those most hurt by sports gambling are the least well-off.

A third recent paper, from the University of Oregon economists Kyutaro Matsuzawa and Emily Arnesen, shows another, perhaps more surprising—and certainly more harrowing—harm of gambling legalization: domestic violence. Earlier research found that an NFL home team’s upset loss causes a 10 percent increase in reported incidents of men being violent toward their partner. Matsuzawa and Arnesen extend this, finding that in states where sports betting is legal, the effect is even bigger. They estimate that legal sports betting leads to a roughly 9 percent increase in intimate-partner violence.

Because of the studies’ design, these results reveal what sports gambling causes, not merely what it correlates with. And the numbers they reveal are of course not only numbers but human lives. Sports gambling is addictive; although many people can do just a little of it, some keep playing compulsively, well past the point of no return. This yields not only debt and bankruptcy but emotional instability and even violence. The problems don’t stop there: Gambling addiction has been connected to anxiety, depression, and even suicide.

The industry may claim to want to prevent problem gambling, but its profits largely come from the compulsions of people with a problem. A small number of people place the large majority of bets—about 5 percent of bettors spent 70 percent of the money in New Jersey in late 2020 and early 2021, for example. The costs of gambling concentrate among those least able to pay, setting back those who most need help. That dollar that could have gone to buying a home, getting a degree, or escaping debt instead goes to another wager. Such behavior is irresponsible, but it’s hard to blame bettors alone when companies make their profits by pushing them to bet more.

Legalization isn’t yielding many benefits, either. Tax revenue—one of the major justifications for legalization—has been anemic, with all 38 legal states combined making only about $500 million from it a quarter, less than alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana. And it hasn’t even shrunk the illegal market, at least in Massachusetts, where bettors were just as likely to use unauthorized betting sites after legalization.


Against this backdrop, PASPA-era prohibition looks comparatively benign. Americans could bet with one another, but businesses couldn’t profit off of it. Arrests for gambling were basically nonexistent, meaning prohibition had limited human cost.

For little obvious gain, most states have permitted businesses to make billions of dollars off of the most economically precarious among us. Some commentators and politicians have—falteringly—recognized these costs, and suggested careful regulation around the edges to address them.

But the more elegant solution is the blunter one: ban sports gambling once again. Unlike regulation—which is complex, hard to get right, and challenged by near-certain industry capture of regulatory bodies—prohibition cuts the problem off at the root. No legal sports gambling, no sports-gambling industry.

For the dozen states, including Texas and California, where sports gambling is still illegal, the solution is simple: change nothing. For the other states, undoing the damage may be harder. But it is damage worth undoing. If the states are “laboratories of democracy,” then the results of their experiment with sports gambling are in, and they are uniformly negative. Better to end the study now than prolong the suffering.
 
you need an account to read the whole thing but even without reading it I will say "agree"

Same here. I'm not a gambler, no real interest in gambling, and the NFL coverage & advertising is awash in it now.

I can still remember when all the TV analysts pretended to NOT know anything about fantasy football. It was annoying BS, but in hindsight... I wish it was still that way. Now everybody with a microphone plays, or claims to play, in so many leagues that every player getting analyzed is "on their team!" I guess they never got the memo that FF players don't GAF about your team. So that switch (feels like 5-6 years ago) was bad enough... then came DAILY FF for our degenerates and 13-second attention spanners... and now has eroded further into prop bets.

Happening in NASCAR too by the way (and presumably into all sports). It's all about the many ways you can lose your arse... faster than ever.
 
I haven't been to March Madness since the explosion of online betting services. For those that have been recently, has there been a downturn in the amount of people there for MM? I'm curious if making it easier to bet $100 on UCONN from your couch meant less people were betting live.
 
MoP Jr has a couple gambling Apps on his phone and the other night he is telling me has this RB and the over on something like 60 yds rush
And he tells me it's just $5...now in all reality my son is good with his money, owns a home in the 25 and under age, that's not common and he puts money in his 401 k
Hard for me to come down on him but I'm concerned and I see the gambling promoted on shows like Dan LeBatard which is sponsored by DraftKings
I am concerned and I want to talk to him but then again when i was his age I was touring the SoCal poker rooms '00-'06 HEAVY
I was in either Commerce or the Hustler 4 nights a week, couldn't get enough of it. One time my wife had to come drag me out after 24 hours straight maybe longer

I'm concerned because son has taken up a lot of my hobbies like FF and I think mostly so we can hang out, I worry I've not done enough to warn him of the dangers
I see a lot of young people gambling, kids that still live at home with mom and dad, it's disturbing for sure. You don't see it talked about much
 
Last edited:
Low rolling to make the games more interesting to some is OK, but just like any form of gambling, or other addictions, people abuse it. This is no different. Look how easy it is to abuse drinking, smoking pot, vaping, not wearing motorcycle helmets in some states, etc. People have free will.
 
Didn't really need an article to tell me that gambling could lead to financial ruin, that's why I barely do it. The domestic violence is surprising but I could see it. My biggest fear, and I don't have any proof, although I feel like it sometimes....if the NFL etc. gets involved in the outcomes of games and dilude the sports.
 
there's a balance between fun and addiction - and the pivot between the those two differs for all - beit betting,, drinking or others things we do as humans
 
A third recent paper, from the University of Oregon economists Kyutaro Matsuzawa and Emily Arnesen, shows another, perhaps more surprising—and certainly more harrowing—harm of gambling legalization: domestic violence. Earlier research found that an NFL home team’s upset loss causes a 10 percent increase in reported incidents of men being violent toward their partner. Matsuzawa and Arnesen extend this, finding that in states where sports betting is legal, the effect is even bigger. They estimate that legal sports betting leads to a roughly 9 percent increase in intimate-partner violence.

So much for high quality journalism.

Guess if we could increase sports gambling domestic violence would go to zero.

On a serious note, J, does this give you pause participating in the fantasy football business with the legalization of dfs and proliferation of paid ff contests? Personally I believe unless your willing to go the Chinese/NK route with cruel punishments for behaviors you don't want than banning does no good.
 
Next you're going to tell me a dispensary on every corner is bad for the community.
It’s probably not for most people, but I’m sure it is for some. It’s free will and we have most of it at our fingertips. I’m sure cellphone’s are harmful to some also, especially children, but that can of worms has already been opened. We made our beds, so now we must sleep in them.
 
A third recent paper, from the University of Oregon economists Kyutaro Matsuzawa and Emily Arnesen, shows another, perhaps more surprising—and certainly more harrowing—harm of gambling legalization: domestic violence. Earlier research found that an NFL home team’s upset loss causes a 10 percent increase in reported incidents of men being violent toward their partner. Matsuzawa and Arnesen extend this, finding that in states where sports betting is legal, the effect is even bigger. They estimate that legal sports betting leads to a roughly 9 percent increase in intimate-partner violence.

So much for high quality journalism.

Guess if we could increase sports gambling domestic violence would go to zero.

On a serious note, J, does this give you pause participating in the fantasy football business with the legalization of dfs and proliferation of paid ff contests? Personally I believe unless your willing to go the Chinese/NK route with cruel punishments for behaviors you don't want than banning does no good.
I think it's a mistake to lump season long fantasy sports in with DFS style gambling though. It takes so much more time and effort, and takes so long to actually SEE the return or loss, that I can't imagine the list of people who bankrupted themselves with season long fantasy football is very long. And that's ignoring the age old argument about whether season long FF is gambling at all ... at least in the traditional sense.
Count me among those very leery of the recent explosion of DFS style gambling, and troubled by the NFLs welcoming it. You can't watch a single NFL show or game of any kind without seeing a draftkings commercial.
 
A third recent paper, from the University of Oregon economists Kyutaro Matsuzawa and Emily Arnesen, shows another, perhaps more surprising—and certainly more harrowing—harm of gambling legalization: domestic violence. Earlier research found that an NFL home team’s upset loss causes a 10 percent increase in reported incidents of men being violent toward their partner. Matsuzawa and Arnesen extend this, finding that in states where sports betting is legal, the effect is even bigger. They estimate that legal sports betting leads to a roughly 9 percent increase in intimate-partner violence.

So much for high quality journalism.

Guess if we could increase sports gambling domestic violence would go to zero.

On a serious note, J, does this give you pause participating in the fantasy football business with the legalization of dfs and proliferation of paid ff contests? Personally I believe unless your willing to go the Chinese/NK route with cruel punishments for behaviors you don't want than banning does no good.
I think it's a mistake to lump season long fantasy sports in with DFS style gambling though. It takes so much more time and effort, and takes so long to actually SEE the return or loss, that I can't imagine the list of people who bankrupted themselves with season long fantasy football is very long. And that's ignoring the age old argument about whether season long FF is gambling at all ... at least in the traditional sense.
Count me among those very leery of the recent explosion of DFS style gambling, and troubled by the NFLs welcoming it. You can't watch a single NFL show or game of any kind without seeing a draftkings commercial.
Remember when cigarette ads were banned? I remember cigarette machines on every street corner. Things change over time due to activism, and this could too. Never say never.
 
A third recent paper, from the University of Oregon economists Kyutaro Matsuzawa and Emily Arnesen, shows another, perhaps more surprising—and certainly more harrowing—harm of gambling legalization: domestic violence. Earlier research found that an NFL home team’s upset loss causes a 10 percent increase in reported incidents of men being violent toward their partner. Matsuzawa and Arnesen extend this, finding that in states where sports betting is legal, the effect is even bigger. They estimate that legal sports betting leads to a roughly 9 percent increase in intimate-partner violence.

So much for high quality journalism.

Guess if we could increase sports gambling domestic violence would go to zero.

On a serious note, J, does this give you pause participating in the fantasy football business with the legalization of dfs and proliferation of paid ff contests? Personally I believe unless your willing to go the Chinese/NK route with cruel punishments for behaviors you don't want than banning does no good.
I think it's a mistake to lump season long fantasy sports in with DFS style gambling though. It takes so much more time and effort, and takes so long to actually SEE the return or loss, that I can't imagine the list of people who bankrupted themselves with season long dynasty football is very long. And that's ignoring the age old argument about whether season long FF is gambling at all ... at least in the traditional sense.
Count me among those very leery of the recent explosion of DFS style gambling, and troubled by the NFLs welcoming it. You can't watch a single NFL show or game of any kind without seeing a draftkings commercial.
i agree and i think that was always known. before sports gambling was legal everywhere we could still use leaguesafe for season long leagues like redrafts and dynasties. or paypal if you trust everyone. as someone who has been doing pay leagues for more than a decade it's obvious how different it is then straight up sports gambling or daily fantasy. with the former it's profit almost every season so long as you do enough of them with some variance and with the later it is always a loss in the long run. with a lot of leagues it's a lot of work and paying attention for not a lot of money but that's what mitigates the risk. in daily and sports gambling it's such a crapshoot that it's not worth it in the long run. sure, you may win some weeks or get hot for a bit but in the end the house will always win.

i burned my free signups when it was legal and either lost a bit or won and cashed out and never returned. for a few years now i am bombarded with free entries and specials as those places just want me to deposit again but i never do cept for maybe a little for the nfl playoffs knowing i likely lose it then or if i win then lose on the nba. some people don't have such restraint
 
Article:

Legalizing Sports Gambling Was a Huge Mistake​

The evidence is convincing: The betting industry is ruining lives.
By Charles Fain Lehman

Over the weekend, millions of Americans watched football. They cheered, they ate, and—more than ever—they gambled. The American Gaming Association expects $35 billion in bets to be placed on NFL games in 2024, about one-third more than last year’s total.

If you follow sports, gambling is everywhere. Ads for it are all over broadcasts; more than one in three Americans now bets on sports, according to a Seton Hall poll. Before 2018, sports gambling was prohibited almost everywhere. Now it’s legal in 38 states and the District of Columbia, yielding $10 billion a year in revenue.

Readers may be quick to dismiss these developments as harmless. Many sports fans enjoy betting on the game, they say. Is it such a big deal if they do it with a company rather than their friends?

A growing body of social-science literature suggests that, yes, this is in fact quite different. The rise of sports gambling has caused a wave of financial and familial misery, one that falls disproportionately on the most economically precarious households. Six years into the experiment, the evidence is convincing: Legalizing sports gambling was a huge mistake.

Starting in 1992, sports betting was generally banned throughout most of the United States under the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act. PASPA forbade running gambling “schemes” tied to competitive sports. Americans could still make bets with one another about Super Bowl results, but neither government nor businesses could get a cut of the action.

That approach held until 2012, when New Jersey, fearing that Atlantic City was losing its competitive edge, legalized sports gambling. The NCAA brought suit, alleging a violation of PASPA; the state responded that PASPA itself was an infringement on its sovereignty. The case came before the Supreme Court, which in 2018 ruled that PASPA violated the Tenth Amendment’s prohibition on the federal government exercising powers reserved for the states.

With PASPA gone, states were eager to let sportsbooks set up shop. Within a year and a half, Goldman Sachs estimated, Americans were betting about $50 million a month. By late 2023, that figure exceeded $1 billion a month—a 20-fold increase.

Because different states legalized sports gambling at different times, social scientists can compare different measures of well-being in states that did legalize with those that did not, before and after legalization.

Alarming patterns have started to emerge. Two recent working papers look at the economic impacts of legalization. One, by Northwestern University’s Scott Baker and colleagues, finds that legal sports gambling depletes households’ savings. Specifically, for every $1 spent on betting, households put $2 less into investment accounts. States see big increases in the risk of overdrafting a bank account or maxing out a credit card. These effects are strongest among already precarious households.

A second paper, from the economists Brett Hollenbeck of UCLA and Poet Larsen and Davide Proserpio of the University of Southern California, tells a similar story. Looking specifically at online sports gambling, they find that legalization increases the risk that a household goes bankrupt by 25 to 30 percent, and increases debt delinquency. These problems seem to concentrate among young men living in low-income counties—further evidence that those most hurt by sports gambling are the least well-off.

A third recent paper, from the University of Oregon economists Kyutaro Matsuzawa and Emily Arnesen, shows another, perhaps more surprising—and certainly more harrowing—harm of gambling legalization: domestic violence. Earlier research found that an NFL home team’s upset loss causes a 10 percent increase in reported incidents of men being violent toward their partner. Matsuzawa and Arnesen extend this, finding that in states where sports betting is legal, the effect is even bigger. They estimate that legal sports betting leads to a roughly 9 percent increase in intimate-partner violence.

Because of the studies’ design, these results reveal what sports gambling causes, not merely what it correlates with. And the numbers they reveal are of course not only numbers but human lives. Sports gambling is addictive; although many people can do just a little of it, some keep playing compulsively, well past the point of no return. This yields not only debt and bankruptcy but emotional instability and even violence. The problems don’t stop there: Gambling addiction has been connected to anxiety, depression, and even suicide.

The industry may claim to want to prevent problem gambling, but its profits largely come from the compulsions of people with a problem. A small number of people place the large majority of bets—about 5 percent of bettors spent 70 percent of the money in New Jersey in late 2020 and early 2021, for example. The costs of gambling concentrate among those least able to pay, setting back those who most need help. That dollar that could have gone to buying a home, getting a degree, or escaping debt instead goes to another wager. Such behavior is irresponsible, but it’s hard to blame bettors alone when companies make their profits by pushing them to bet more.

Legalization isn’t yielding many benefits, either. Tax revenue—one of the major justifications for legalization—has been anemic, with all 38 legal states combined making only about $500 million from it a quarter, less than alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana. And it hasn’t even shrunk the illegal market, at least in Massachusetts, where bettors were just as likely to use unauthorized betting sites after legalization.


Against this backdrop, PASPA-era prohibition looks comparatively benign. Americans could bet with one another, but businesses couldn’t profit off of it. Arrests for gambling were basically nonexistent, meaning prohibition had limited human cost.

For little obvious gain, most states have permitted businesses to make billions of dollars off of the most economically precarious among us. Some commentators and politicians have—falteringly—recognized these costs, and suggested careful regulation around the edges to address them.

But the more elegant solution is the blunter one: ban sports gambling once again. Unlike regulation—which is complex, hard to get right, and challenged by near-certain industry capture of regulatory bodies—prohibition cuts the problem off at the root. No legal sports gambling, no sports-gambling industry.

For the dozen states, including Texas and California, where sports gambling is still illegal, the solution is simple: change nothing. For the other states, undoing the damage may be harder. But it is damage worth undoing. If the states are “laboratories of democracy,” then the results of their experiment with sports gambling are in, and they are uniformly negative. Better to end the study now than prolong the suffering.
Gambling certainly can be a bad thing. I can see arguing people shouldn't do it, but it shouldn't be illegal. It isn't governments role to make everything bad for you illegal.
 
The Atlantic is highly respected
To be fair, they’ve been up & down over the years. Depends on who’s writing the article at hand.

This one looks fascinating though - thanks for sharing.
Agree. They have some pedestrian journalists in some cities (especially with respect to certain sports). However they are, IMO, the best out there overall and this article is evidence of that.
 
I don't get why this is singled out. It's another example of people not taking responsibility for themselves. We gotta make gambling illegal because people aren't smart enough not to do it or do it within reason.

Nobody forces anybody to do any of this. Take some personal accountability already. Things like this always irk me.
 
I don't get why this is singled out. It's another example of people not taking responsibility for themselves. We gotta make gambling illegal because people aren't smart enough not to do it or do it within reason.

Nobody forces anybody to do any of this. Take some personal accountability already. Things like this always irk me.
We could say this for a lot of things that are already banned. Does this affect kids? That has been the #1 thing that gets things banned, such as cigarette ads. Are these ads affecting people it shouldn't? If yes, then it will get attacked. I agree with you in principle about people taking personal accountability, but when it can affect youth, it will get attacked. My guess is that a lot of sports betting today is being done by young people. I'm not familiar with the rules of sports betting with apps, but are there controls to prevent underage kids from gambling if they have a credit card?
 
I'm not familiar with the rules of sports betting with apps, but are there controls to prevent underage kids from gambling if they have a credit card?
The controls need to be parents. That is what you are there for. Again, this goes back to personal accountability and that includes being accountable to being a good parent. There are laws where minor's are not allowed to gamble just like they aren't allowed to drink alcohol. This should be no different.

There are many things "bad for kids". Ban ads if people think it would make a difference. I don't care either way. I would just like people to start taking responsibility and not prohibit those that can do things responsibly from doing things they enjoy (responsibly).
 
I'm not familiar with the rules of sports betting with apps, but are there controls to prevent underage kids from gambling if they have a credit card?
The controls need to be parents. That is what you are there for. Again, this goes back to personal accountability and that includes being accountable to being a good parent. There are laws where minor's are not allowed to gamble just like they aren't allowed to drink alcohol. This should be no different.

There are many things "bad for kids". Ban ads if people think it would make a difference. I don't care either way. I would just like people to start taking responsibility and not prohibit those that can do things responsibly from doing things they enjoy (responsibly).
So, should they go back to cigarette ads and machines on every street corner? I personally say yes, but people get things changed through activism and this may not be any different. Sometimes people get things changed that I don't agree with. Sometimes they get things changed that I do agree with. It is my opinion there should be safeguards against underage children from using gambling apps to gamble on sports, but that's just me. You do you.
 
I'm not familiar with the rules of sports betting with apps, but are there controls to prevent underage kids from gambling if they have a credit card?
The controls need to be parents. That is what you are there for. Again, this goes back to personal accountability and that includes being accountable to being a good parent. There are laws where minor's are not allowed to gamble just like they aren't allowed to drink alcohol. This should be no different.

There are many things "bad for kids". Ban ads if people think it would make a difference. I don't care either way. I would just like people to start taking responsibility and not prohibit those that can do things responsibly from doing things they enjoy (responsibly).
So, should they go back to cigarette ads and machines on every street corner? I personally say yes, but people get things changed through activism and this may not be any different. Sometimes people get things changed that I don't agree with. Sometimes they get things changed that I do agree with. It is my opinion there should be safeguards against underage children from using gambling apps to gamble on sports, but that's just me. You do you.
I agree with all that you said. I have no issue with ads at all. it actually gives you a built in opportunity to talk to your kids about such stuff. I also agree there should be safeguards in place for gambling apps. I am not opposed to any of that. I just think blaming the item for people not being able to control themselves is lazy and wrong.
 
I'm not familiar with the rules of sports betting with apps, but are there controls to prevent underage kids from gambling if they have a credit card?
The controls need to be parents. That is what you are there for. Again, this goes back to personal accountability and that includes being accountable to being a good parent. There are laws where minor's are not allowed to gamble just like they aren't allowed to drink alcohol. This should be no different.

There are many things "bad for kids". Ban ads if people think it would make a difference. I don't care either way. I would just like people to start taking responsibility and not prohibit those that can do things responsibly from doing things they enjoy (responsibly).
So, should they go back to cigarette ads and machines on every street corner? I personally say yes, but people get things changed through activism and this may not be any different. Sometimes people get things changed that I don't agree with. Sometimes they get things changed that I do agree with. It is my opinion there should be safeguards against underage children from using gambling apps to gamble on sports, but that's just me. You do you.
I agree with all that you said. I have no issue with ads at all. it actually gives you a built in opportunity to talk to your kids about such stuff. I also agree there should be safeguards in place for gambling apps. I am not opposed to any of that. I just think blaming the item for people not being able to control themselves is lazy and wrong.
Same thing could be said about guns, but I don’t want to make this even more political than it is, and it is.
 
Kind of stinks to be honest, I've got a group of friends who lose their paycheck gambling repetitively. It's way too accessible, it's like having a roulette wheel at your kitchen table.


And like, it shouldn't be possible to bet on some of these obscure markets, they're honestly preying on people. A gambling addiction can be just as bad if not worse than a gambling addiction.


I used to beg for it to be legalized, but now that it's here I can see what the older generations were trying to save us from. They have no issue stealing everyone's money.


I'd wager that only 15% of gamblers actually "make money". These markets are beatable but you have to treat it "like a job" and guess what? I've already got a job and I never have to risk a single dollar...
 
The Atlantic is highly respected
To be fair, they’ve been up & down over the years. Depends on who’s writing the article at hand.

This one looks fascinating though - thanks for sharing.

Yeah, The Atlantic isn’t what it used to be. Although not much is…
Yeah, the handful of articles I've read from them are heavily biased but pretend to be neutral (worst type of journalism). That being said, I don't think making gambling easy is a good thing.
 
Ok, after reading this, I’m with @Gally

It’s a personal responsibility issue. Making gambling illegal has the same net result as making alcohol illegal: it creates crime, and fosters an environment lacking safety, where criminals profit off of the general public in an unregulated forum.

When I saw the topic title I was hoping it would be a discussion about the various sports open association/partnerships with various gambling sites.

Or about players point shaving or refs potentially on the take.

Sure, there are folks with gambling additions, who bet way beyond their means. And that’s a delicate subject, and one where which I have empathy for victims who struggle as a result.

But if it’s not football those folks will play poker, slots, craps, blackjack, bet on the ponies. Etc, Gambling won’t go away if we criminalize it.

At its core, FF is gambling. Sure it’s a “game of skill” and in home leagues there’s no house to take a cut (usually) - I know some of the sites take a % or fixed amount for hosting leagues, but at the end of the day, if there’s $ involved, FF is also a game of luck, and it is absolutely gambling.

Calling FF a game of skill is about the same as calling poker a game of skill. He most skillful players still need to get lucky from time to time.

I don’t really see the point of this article other than “there’s a problem” and “something must be done!”, which is the rallying cry for just about every bit of hasty legislation our county tries to shove down our legal system.
 
New article today.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/09/legal-sports-gambling-was-mistake/679925/

Most of you probably know but The Atlantic is highly respected. This isn't some random blog.

The Atlantic is consistently at the top of thoughtful high quality journalism with a broad appeal and lots of respect.

I don't expect this will change one single thing in the least.

But it's notable.
Atlantic used to be highly respected. Now they're just government propaganda. If they're writing an article like this, it has an angle where the government is trying to shape society for its benefit.

Just glancing over it, the angle seems to be the government wants to further regulate how people live their lives. They helped unleash unlimited gambling on the public and now theyre using that as an excuse to step in and "help" people by putting in more regulation to control all of us.
 
Last edited:
I *mostly* agree with the "It’s a personal responsibility issue" but when you are addicted what's the fix then?
About as easy as those who blow their entire paycheck at casinos, which are everywhere now. There isn’t a fix short of closing them. I remember when there was only casinos in Nevada and Atlantic City.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JAA
I *mostly* agree with the "It’s a personal responsibility issue" but when you are addicted what's the fix then?
About as easy as those who blow their entire paycheck at casinos, which are everywhere now. There isn’t a fix short of closing them. I remember when there was only casinos in Nevada and Atlantic City.
The "fix" is the person admitting they have an issue and to get help to control their addiction. Nothing else will "fix" it.
 
I *mostly* agree with the "It’s a personal responsibility issue" but when you are addicted what's the fix then?
About as easy as those who blow their entire paycheck at casinos, which are everywhere now. There isn’t a fix short of closing them. I remember when there was only casinos in Nevada and Atlantic City.
The "fix" is the person admitting they have an issue and to get help to control their addiction. Nothing else will "fix" it.
The can of worms are out of the can for everything. Everything goes now. The only fix is the world blows up and there is a societal reset. I’ve accepted it. Nor am I for long in this world anyway.
 
A third recent paper, from the University of Oregon economists Kyutaro Matsuzawa and Emily Arnesen, shows another, perhaps more surprising—and certainly more harrowing—harm of gambling legalization: domestic violence. Earlier research found that an NFL home team’s upset loss causes a 10 percent increase in reported incidents of men being violent toward their partner. Matsuzawa and Arnesen extend this, finding that in states where sports betting is legal, the effect is even bigger. They estimate that legal sports betting leads to a roughly 9 percent increase in intimate-partner violence.

So much for high quality journalism.

Guess if we could increase sports gambling domestic violence would go to zero.

On a serious note, J, does this give you pause participating in the fantasy football business with the legalization of dfs and proliferation of paid ff contests? Personally I believe unless your willing to go the Chinese/NK route with cruel punishments for behaviors you don't want than banning does no good.
I think it's a mistake to lump season long fantasy sports in with DFS style gambling though. It takes so much more time and effort, and takes so long to actually SEE the return or loss, that I can't imagine the list of people who bankrupted themselves with season long fantasy football is very long. And that's ignoring the age old argument about whether season long FF is gambling at all ... at least in the traditional sense.
Count me among those very leery of the recent explosion of DFS style gambling, and troubled by the NFLs welcoming it. You can't watch a single NFL show or game of any kind without seeing a draftkings commercial.
It's morphed to high stakes where the houses takes a 10-20% cut. You now have season long draft and go best ball where people do 100's of leagues no mgmt required. If youpay another $20 or so this site will give you advice on those.
 
Article:

Legalizing Sports Gambling Was a Huge Mistake​

Gambling certainly can be a bad thing. I can see arguing people shouldn't do it, but it shouldn't be illegal. It isn't governments role to make everything bad for you illegal.
That's easy to say in a vacuum, but when someone declares BK, others suffer too. It does NOT effect just the person who goes BK. It's an extension of the whole libertarian argument I suppose. I once heard someone argue the government had no right forcing them to obtain a drivers license...if they hurt someone they can be sued then. Or car insurance, same thought. Or seat belts. We can list a dozen other non automobile related rules/laws. The point is that yes...some people need to be protected from themselves in order to protect others from them as well. Even in the case of seat belts...you don't wear one and get seriously hurt...it affects all of our health insurance premiums, it affects your family, your creditors, etc.

VERY LITTLE you do is in a vacuum and effects only you. But I suppose this a theoretical, almost political discussion at this point. Suffice to say I despise that argument in general any time others can be affected.
 
Last edited:
It's morphed to high stakes where the houses takes a 10-20% cut. You now have season long draft and go best ball where people do 100's of leagues no mgmt required. If youpay another $20 or so this site will give you advice on those.
I did a $150 BB team at NFFC, and I gotta admit, I love it.

I somewhat foolishly waited on QB & ended up with Darnold as my QB1, and my team is killing it. 17 teams, I never have to touch my lineup or sweat a boneheaded roster decision.

I will absolutely play in another BB next year.

I will not play in 100 BB’s. Because I know my spending limits. That can’t be regulated, and criminalizing it makes it worse, not better (getting back to the gist of the article/topic)
 
Article:

Legalizing Sports Gambling Was a Huge Mistake​

Gambling certainly can be a bad thing. I can see arguing people shouldn't do it, but it shouldn't be illegal. It isn't governments role to make everything bad for you illegal.
That's easy to say in a vacuum, but when someone declares BK, others suffer too. It does NOT effect just the person who goes BK. It's an extension of the whole libertarian argument I suppose. I once heard someone argue the government had no right forcing them to obtain a drivers license...if they hurt someone they can be sued then. Or car insurance, same thought. Or seat belts. We can list a dozen other non automobile related rules/laws. The point is that yes...some people need to be protected from themselves in order to protect others from them as well. Even in the case of seat belts...you don't wear one and get seriously hurt...it affects all of our health insurance premiums, it affects your family, your creditors, etc.

VERY LITTLE you do is in a vacuum and effects only you. But I suppose this a theoretical, almost political discussion at this point. Suffice to say I despise that argument in general any time others can be affected.
Sure, but you’re also making the extremely bold stretch that if it’s criminalized, that problem will go away.

I’m no libertarian, but IMO drugs, gambling, prostitution should all be legal and regulated for a safer society.

Works in the Netherlands. Lots of tax revenue too.
 
Related to this, apparently ESPNBet posted on TikTok that Devin Singletary was point shaving when he slid down on the 1 at the end of the Giants/Browns game. (If he had scored game would have gone over). That's wayyy out of bounds.
 
It’s important to remember that nearly all of us here, are gamblers. Playing in a $25 dollar home league is gambling. I’d surmise 99% of us play for some (likely small or moderate) stake.

My issue is where (or if) to draw a line? By extension the author implies that fantasy football is a “mistake”. Fantasy football is sports gambling.

In a free society, that’s the price we pay. Whether it’s booze, pot, gambling (remember too Church bingo games and lotteries are gambling). Personally, I’ll take free will (and yes, that means some will suffer, unfortunately) so that the significant majority of people can use their money as they see fit.
 
Related to this, apparently ESPNBet posted on TikTok that Devin Singletary was point shaving when he slid down on the 1 at the end of the Giants/Browns game. (If he had scored game would have gone over). That's wayyy out of bounds.
Will he and/or should he be punished by the league?
 
Not going to read the article because, no duh.
It's all obvious. Everything that makes sense. 70% of the money is spent by 5% of the gamblers. The problem gamblers are a small enough percentage that people can ignore. So that's what will happen.

College guys, that's the ones I imagine will see that really dramatic spike. How can anyone play season long fantasy football, and not get bombarded with DFS, and gambling ads?

Interesting reading Joe. Wasted on this crowd, but interesting.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top