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

[Bri]

Some of this data is disturbing.

I did IT for an Indian tribe and "you wouldn't believe" what people do when bad luck happens is....pretty much what you would believe but yet it's regular people you see around town and it really messes with your head to watch.

Telling your spouse you lost the rent.
Losing your house (or car) because you went there with your mortgage payment and were already behind.

I gotta believe a lot of people would do a lot of shady things before losing their house but I don't want to believe it.

"Only take what you can afford to lose" should be everyone's mantra. I'm uncomfortable giving marriage or financial advice and never do but I would definitely make an exception and impress that upon people.

They believe they're about to win and their luck is changing. Every loser thought that and you've gotta take that in and chew on that too when you're thinking that way.

I don't know how couples invoke controls at home for online gambling and to each their own just...have that discussion too because "losers always believe their luck is about to change."

 

[Gjallarhorn]

The amazing thing to me is how brazen they are with the advertising. You can not watch any ESPN programming without being bombarded with segments sponsored by <insert gambling company>. Reminds me a lot of 80s commercials that were either cigarettes, chewing tobacco, or alcohol. Only a matter of time before legislation prevents the advertising for sports betting.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

The amazing thing to me is how brazen they are with the advertising. You can not watch any ESPN programming without being bombarded with segments sponsored by <insert gambling company>. Reminds me a lot of 80s commercials that were either cigarettes, chewing tobacco, or alcohol. Only a matter of time before legislation prevents the advertising for sports betting.

My state legalized weed and sports gambling around the same time. Way way more regulation on dispensary ads than gambling ads.

 

[BassNBrew]

I have a few buddies that are big time gamblers and one of the worst things is that after they've taken a beating and lost big or won big and pulled a big chunk of money out these sites are relentless with their promotions to get you back in and betting again. It's pretty sick and no different than a drug dealer giving a freebie to a struggling addict. They know exactly what they are doing. If that doesn't work, the sales guys will offer tickets / box seats to get you betting again. It's non-stop.

Another thing that is profoundly disturbing is that a huge % of college males bet constantly and WELL above what they can afford to lose. He has many, many friends that bet hundreds on game after game after game. Bet sizes I would not be comfortable with and I make a fine living. It always starts with football and soon enough they are betting soccer, baseball, basketball and hockey...then prop bets and parlay after parlay. It's pretty insane and scary that there's a generation growing up where this is "normal".

I was running a weekly football pool in high school in the 80's for more than I felt comfortable carrying around. I'm sure our parents sit around at bowling league discussing the downfall of socirty. Young males have always loved to gamble. Sure, easier now, but it's easier to secure anything now.

 

[BassNBrew]

The amazing thing to me is how brazen they are with the advertising. You can not watch any ESPN programming without being bombarded with segments sponsored by <insert gambling company>. Reminds me a lot of 80s commercials that were either cigarettes, chewing tobacco, or alcohol. Only a matter of time before legislation prevents the advertising for sports betting.

My state legalized weed and sports gambling around the same time. Way way more regulation on dispensary ads than gambling ads.

After spending a week driving around CO, there may be more dispensaries than draftking ads on TV.

 

[Statorama]

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.

March Madness was still just as, um, mad as it ever has been. If ticket prices on the secondary are any indication, there's not shortage of people wanted to see the games. I attended a regional final and the final four / championship games and it was PACKED.

Oh heck, I forgot to add "been to March Madness in Vegas since the explosion of online betting services" but also good to know about the live event.

 

[InDitkaWeTrust]

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.

March Madness was still just as, um, mad as it ever has been. If ticket prices on the secondary are any indication, there's not shortage of people wanted to see the games. I attended a regional final and the final four / championship games and it was PACKED.

Oh heck, I forgot to add "been to March Madness in Vegas since the explosion of online betting services" but also good to know about the live event.

Lol. Yes, that makes more sense!

 

[Statorama]

The amazing thing to me is how brazen they are with the advertising. You can not watch any ESPN programming without being bombarded with segments sponsored by <insert gambling company>. Reminds me a lot of 80s commercials that were either cigarettes, chewing tobacco, or alcohol. Only a matter of time before legislation prevents the advertising for sports betting.

My initial thought on this was that they'd never have the stones to turn their backs on billions and billions of dollars, but it's been done before (like you said) with cigarette advertising.

Can you imagine the lobbying that is being done on behalf of this enterprise? There's a lot of "decision makers" getting their pockets jammed with cash...

 

[renesauz]

What is the major difference between legalized sports gambling and playing fantasy football?

Assuming you're talking about a yearly league vs. DFS in fantasy football you're setting aside a fixed amount of money each year, so there's a maximum loss for that season which presumably can be reasonably lost. With legalized gambling the losses are limitless.

Fantasy players can take an unacceptable amount of financial risk at the beginning of a fantasy season, fixed or otherwise. It doesn't need to be "limitless".

BUT they aren't chasing losses. It doesn't feed the addiction to anywhere close to the same extent because the results/returns are months out. Some of y'all want to lump season long sports into the same gambling bucket, but they just don't fit. Call it gambling if you like, but it is NOT the same, not even close

 

[BassNBrew]

What is the major difference between legalized sports gambling and playing fantasy football?

Assuming you're talking about a yearly league vs. DFS in fantasy football you're setting aside a fixed amount of money each year, so there's a maximum loss for that season which presumably can be reasonably lost. With legalized gambling the losses are limitless.

Fantasy players can take an unacceptable amount of financial risk at the beginning of a fantasy season, fixed or otherwise. It doesn't need to be "limitless".

BUT they aren't chasing losses. It doesn't feed the addiction to anywhere close to the same extent because the results/returns are months out. Some of y'all want to lump season long sports into the same gambling bucket, but they just don't fit. Call it gambling if you like, but it is NOT the same, not even close

I may be a Green Wing Teal instead of a Mallard. Just because the season is different, it still quacks like a duck.

I agree with you on feeding the addication. DFS was created to jam a season into a weekend and then the found a way to jam it into a half day and then a single game.

 

[renesauz]

What is the major difference between legalized sports gambling and playing fantasy football?

Assuming you're talking about a yearly league vs. DFS in fantasy football you're setting aside a fixed amount of money each year, so there's a maximum loss for that season which presumably can be reasonably lost. With legalized gambling the losses are limitless.

Fantasy players can take an unacceptable amount of financial risk at the beginning of a fantasy season, fixed or otherwise. It doesn't need to be "limitless".

BUT they aren't chasing losses. It doesn't feed the addiction to anywhere close to the same extent because the results/returns are months out. Some of y'all want to lump season long sports into the same gambling bucket, but they just don't fit. Call it gambling if you like, but it is NOT the same, not even close

I may be a Green Wing Teal instead of a Mallard. Just because the season is different, it still quacks like a duck.

I agree with you on feeding the addication. DFS was created to jam a season into a weekend and then the found a way to jam it into a half day and then a single game.

I think my bigger point is that lumping them together in a discussion like this is less then useful. They don't work the same, they don't pay the same, they don't cause or relate to the same issues. It feels like some want to say "well if fantasy football is ok then DFS should be too", and I find that argument problematic.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

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.

You can make this argument for many things though. Clearly alcohol should be illegal through this frame of reference.

 

[JohnnyU]

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.

You can make this argument for many things though. Clearly alcohol should be illegal through this frame of reference.

They tried that between 1920 to 1933. Gangsters feasted on it.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

betting soccer

The horror

 

[habsfan]

What is the major difference between legalized sports gambling and playing fantasy football?

Assuming you're talking about a yearly league vs. DFS in fantasy football you're setting aside a fixed amount of money each year, so there's a maximum loss for that season which presumably can be reasonably lost. With legalized gambling the losses are limitless.

Fantasy players can take an unacceptable amount of financial risk at the beginning of a fantasy season, fixed or otherwise. It doesn't need to be "limitless".

BUT they aren't chasing losses. It doesn't feed the addiction to anywhere close to the same extent because the results/returns are months out. Some of y'all want to lump season long sports into the same gambling bucket, but they just don't fit. Call it gambling if you like, but it is NOT the same, not even close

I didn't say they were the same. I just said that the presence or absence of a cap on losses isn't what makes one gambling and the other not. Tournament poker has a cap on losses too but maybe that isn't gambling either?

 

[Mitchie]

What is the major difference between legalized sports gambling and playing fantasy football?

Assuming you're talking about a yearly league vs. DFS in fantasy football you're setting aside a fixed amount of money each year, so there's a maximum loss for that season which presumably can be reasonably lost. With legalized gambling the losses are limitless.

Fantasy players can take an unacceptable amount of financial risk at the beginning of a fantasy season, fixed or otherwise. It doesn't need to be "limitless".

BUT they aren't chasing losses. It doesn't feed the addiction to anywhere close to the same extent because the results/returns are months out. Some of y'all want to lump season long sports into the same gambling bucket, but they just don't fit. Call it gambling if you like, but it is NOT the same, not even close

I didn't say they were the same. I just said that the presence or absence of a cap on losses isn't what makes one gambling and the other not. Tournament poker has a cap on losses too but maybe that isn't gambling either?

noone is arguing it's not gambling by definition of the term.

 

[Harry Frogfish]

By far one of the funniest debates on this board was how Fantasy Football was not gambling. Guess which side, by and large, argued it wasn't, vehemently. Hilarious.

 

[Deamon]

you need an account to read the whole thing but even without reading it I will say "agree"

archive.md you can read any article hidden behind a paywall, for free.

https://archive.md/xrjXq

 

[Judge Smails]

In game wagering is going to wreck a lot of people. One thing to bet on a game. Another thing to chase losses wagering on every play

 

[Soulfly3]

not sure if mentioned... but the amoung of gambling "experts" on TikTok is astounding to see.... and guess who is the target audience demographic?

start em young, baby! teens hooked on gambling is going to be insane to watch.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

This might have been brought up earlier, but I believe it's been proven that winning and losing stimulate the same parts of an addicted gambler's brain. So losing doesn't provide a deterrent to more gambling.

I've spoken to some folks I know that, if not addicted, let's say they're really enthusiastic about gambling on pretty much anything. They confirmed that losing doesn't make them want to gamble less, and winning doesn't instill a protect-your-winnings philosophy. I find that fact very scary.

Before online gambling, a different friend of mine who made regular trips to Vegas told me that when he won, he took chunks of that money and got cashier's checks and mailed them to himself from the casino. He had no way to access that money during his trip, it protected his downside risk and it felt good to come home to a bunch of checks. He knew enough to protect himself from himself.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

On the list of predictable outcomes this was near the top.
But on top - more money for the business.

Really though, fantasy football is just one form of gambling. Probably the least harmful form.

I know a person who is a recovering gambling addict (not in an official program, just weaned himself off of a dangerous situation). He uses fantasy football to get his "gambling" fix, knowing that he'll spend far less and spread out over a greater amount of time. He said that, for him, it satisfies that impulse enough to not do any other gambling. So that tracks with your "least harmful" claim.

 

[JohnnyU]

In game wagering is going to wreck a lot of people. One thing to bet on a game. Another thing to chase losses wagering on every play

Kind of like the idiot that plays too many numbers on a roulette wheel.

 

[Joe Bryant]

By far one of the funniest debates on this board was how Fantasy Football was not gambling. Guess which side, by and large, argued it wasn't, vehemently. Hilarious.

Fortunately, we all can access the past discussions. What is the link for what you're talking about?

I'd like to see exactly what was actually said. Especially if it was vehement. Or hilarious.

This on on FF and Gambling https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/is-ff-gambling.335126/

Long time FBG Staffer Jason Wood posted this in 2007 https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/is-ff-gambling.335126/post-7199127

Playing fantasy football isn't gambling. Placing monies into a kitty to be paid out based on the outcome of said fantasy football league is, of course, gambling.

We had this on DFS and Gambling https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/dfs-and-gambling-a-discussion.687917/page-6

Which link are you talking about that was one of the funniest debates ever on the board. And what was hilarious?

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

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.

You can make this argument for many things though. Clearly alcohol should be illegal through this frame of reference.

They tried that between 1920 to 1933. Gangsters feasted on it.

The mob didn't make any money of illegal gambling?

 

[jm192]

This might have been brought up earlier, but I believe it's been proven that winning and losing stimulate the same parts of an addicted gambler's brain. So losing doesn't provide a deterrent to more gambling.

I've spoken to some folks I know that, if not addicted, let's say they're really enthusiastic about gambling on pretty much anything. They confirmed that losing doesn't make them want to gamble less, and winning doesn't instill a protect-your-winnings philosophy. I find that fact very scary.

Before online gambling, a different friend of mine who made regular trips to Vegas told me that when he won, he took chunks of that money and got cashier's checks and mailed them to himself from the casino. He had no way to access that money during his trip, it protected his downside risk and it felt good to come home to a bunch of checks. He knew enough to protect himself from himself.

I assume it's a near win that stimulates the winning part.

Slot machines are frequently 1 line off from the jack pot. They convince you you're so close.

Parlays often miss by 1. You learn to think if you had just been a tad more conservative on your 5 legs...

 

[JohnnyU]

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.

You can make this argument for many things though. Clearly alcohol should be illegal through this frame of reference.

They tried that between 1920 to 1933. Gangsters feasted on it.

The mob didn't make any money of illegal gambling?

Yeah, that too, but I was talking about prohibition, which he made a post about alcohol and I responded to it.

 

[Smack Tripper]

Mathematically, a lotto ticket is a worse investment than the typical bet a customer places on a Sunday afternoon. But psychologically they're much different. A scratch-off ticket is inanimate. The buyer knows (presumably) that it's totally random whether a given ticket will be a winner, they have no control over the situation and they're just chasing the high of scratching off a winner. I know there are addiction problems there and some people probably do react violently to losing their scratch-offs but I don't know if that's a major problem.

Betting on sports makes the customer feel like they have some influence over the outcome. "I watch a lot of sports," Joe Sixpack thinks. "I know CeeDee Lamb is going to score a TD today." And when CeeDee Lamb does score, not only do they maybe win back a little money, but it makes them feel smart and validated - feelings they might otherwise be missing in their lives. And when CeeDee drops the ball in the end zone, or is tackled at the 1 and gets his TD vultured away, or is interfered with but the ref doesn't throw the flag, the customer is mad. "It's not my fault I lost my bet. It's Lamb's / the coach's / the ref's / Taylor Swift's / someone else's fault." The emotional swings involved in sweating a sports bet dwarf the experience of buying a lotto ticket. It wouldn't surprise me at all if sports betting is correlated to increases in things like domestic violence where lotto tickets aren't. It's very easy to imagine the kind of person dumb enough to bet an 8-leg SGP on a Sunday taking it out on his wife when one of those legs loses.

Well, one you're also getting hammered for.

I don't know if everyone has scratch offs locally in their states, but its the most depraved gambling, the equivalent of airplane glue huffing.

I'm sure rich people play scratchers but in my anecdotal experience, its entirley the domain of the lower class. Which is not a judgment on them, but a reflection of theyr'e the least equipped financially to gamble recreationally (as all gambling should be)

 

[Terpman22]

Out here in CA we had to opportunity to vote for legalized gambling recently and it got trounced. I found it odd that that happened, but then again, CA does have a ton of Tribes with Casinos and they had a helluva anti campaign.

With that said, I listen to a ton of Eagles podcasts, where gambling is legal in PA. And just the radio/podcast NONSTOP gambling commercials I get from that small sample I dabble into is....a bit too much. I hate commercials regardless, but these are still like way way worse the way they try to tap into your fandom to bet on your favorite team and all. Not cool.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Out here in CA we had to opportunity to vote for legalized gambling recently and it got trounced. I found it odd that that happened, but then again, CA does have a ton of Tribes with Casinos and they had a helluva anti campaign.

With that said, I listen to a ton of Eagles podcasts, where gambling is legal in PA. And just the radio/podcast NONSTOP gambling commercials I get from that small sample I dabble into is....a bit too much. I hate commercials regardless, but these are still like way way worse the way they try to tap into your fandom to bet on your favorite team and all. Not cool.

Thanks. Aside from the Tribes not wanting it legal for their own reasons of eliminating competition, how do you get the sense most people feel on this in California?

 

[Terpman22]

Out here in CA we had to opportunity to vote for legalized gambling recently and it got trounced. I found it odd that that happened, but then again, CA does have a ton of Tribes with Casinos and they had a helluva anti campaign.

With that said, I listen to a ton of Eagles podcasts, where gambling is legal in PA. And just the radio/podcast NONSTOP gambling commercials I get from that small sample I dabble into is....a bit too much. I hate commercials regardless, but these are still like way way worse the way they try to tap into your fandom to bet on your favorite team and all. Not cool.

Thanks. Aside from the Tribes not wanting it legal for their own reasons of eliminating competition, how do you get the sense most people feel on this in California?

Everyone I talked to in real life voted to make it legal.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Out here in CA we had to opportunity to vote for legalized gambling recently and it got trounced. I found it odd that that happened, but then again, CA does have a ton of Tribes with Casinos and they had a helluva anti campaign.

With that said, I listen to a ton of Eagles podcasts, where gambling is legal in PA. And just the radio/podcast NONSTOP gambling commercials I get from that small sample I dabble into is....a bit too much. I hate commercials regardless, but these are still like way way worse the way they try to tap into your fandom to bet on your favorite team and all. Not cool.

Thanks. Aside from the Tribes not wanting it legal for their own reasons of eliminating competition, how do you get the sense most people feel on this in California?

Everyone I talked to in real life voted to make it legal.

So it feels like it's not about the stuff talked about in the article. But the Tribes protecting their monopoly?

 

[JohnnyU]

Out here in CA we had to opportunity to vote for legalized gambling recently and it got trounced. I found it odd that that happened, but then again, CA does have a ton of Tribes with Casinos and they had a helluva anti campaign.

With that said, I listen to a ton of Eagles podcasts, where gambling is legal in PA. And just the radio/podcast NONSTOP gambling commercials I get from that small sample I dabble into is....a bit too much. I hate commercials regardless, but these are still like way way worse the way they try to tap into your fandom to bet on your favorite team and all. Not cool.

Thanks. Aside from the Tribes not wanting it legal for their own reasons of eliminating competition, how do you get the sense most people feel on this in California?

Everyone I talked to in real life voted to make it legal.

So it feels like it's not about the stuff talked about in the article. But the Tribes protecting their monopoly?

Yes, I know that is it. Here in MN, Mystic Lake Casino are in cahoots with Canterbury Horse Racing with stakes prizes and more to keep them from putting in slots at the race track. They already do Poker. Mystic Lake is just a few miles from Canterbury Race track.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Out here in CA we had to opportunity to vote for legalized gambling recently and it got trounced. I found it odd that that happened, but then again, CA does have a ton of Tribes with Casinos and they had a helluva anti campaign.

With that said, I listen to a ton of Eagles podcasts, where gambling is legal in PA. And just the radio/podcast NONSTOP gambling commercials I get from that small sample I dabble into is....a bit too much. I hate commercials regardless, but these are still like way way worse the way they try to tap into your fandom to bet on your favorite team and all. Not cool.

Thanks. Aside from the Tribes not wanting it legal for their own reasons of eliminating competition, how do you get the sense most people feel on this in California?

Everyone I talked to in real life voted to make it legal.

So it feels like it's not about the stuff talked about in the article. But the Tribes protecting their monopoly?

100%. It’s been very hard to legalize in any of the states with strong tribal casino presence.

 

[Terpman22]

Out here in CA we had to opportunity to vote for legalized gambling recently and it got trounced. I found it odd that that happened, but then again, CA does have a ton of Tribes with Casinos and they had a helluva anti campaign.

With that said, I listen to a ton of Eagles podcasts, where gambling is legal in PA. And just the radio/podcast NONSTOP gambling commercials I get from that small sample I dabble into is....a bit too much. I hate commercials regardless, but these are still like way way worse the way they try to tap into your fandom to bet on your favorite team and all. Not cool.

Thanks. Aside from the Tribes not wanting it legal for their own reasons of eliminating competition, how do you get the sense most people feel on this in California?

Everyone I talked to in real life voted to make it legal.

So it feels like it's not about the stuff talked about in the article. But the Tribes protecting their monopoly?

I would say the influence to kill the law was a blitz that had to be at least 90% of the guys trying to protect their pockets for sure. I didn't get any interactions like "Well ya know gambling could become a problem and..." None of that. It's a money play and they weren't really shy about that aspect, although they tried to be creative with the ads.

 

[Harry Frogfish]

By far one of the funniest debates on this board was how Fantasy Football was not gambling. Guess which side, by and large, argued it wasn't, vehemently. Hilarious.

Fortunately, we all can access the past discussions. What is the link for what you're talking about?

I'd like to see exactly what was actually said. Especially if it was vehement. Or hilarious.

This on on FF and Gambling https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/is-ff-gambling.335126/

Long time FBG Staffer Jason Wood posted this in 2007 https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/is-ff-gambling.335126/post-7199127

Playing fantasy football isn't gambling. Placing monies into a kitty to be paid out based on the outcome of said fantasy football league is, of course, gambling.

We had this on DFS and Gambling https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/dfs-and-gambling-a-discussion.687917/page-6

Which link are you talking about that was one of the funniest debates ever on the board. And what was hilarious?

Sorry if I struck a cord. Did not mean to do so. I just remember, fondly I might add, a rather silly debate. It had nothing to do with you and no intention of offense, I promise, and apologize if it was taken as such.

Wow, I did not mean to strike a cord and if it matters, fantasy football has no correlation to gambling in any way.

 

[TampaMike19]

At what point where there be more regulation on any of the quick dopamine hits in society? Especially the ones geared towards young men these days? The WSB GameStop fiasco was the first time that it illuminated the underlying issue in society: young men are lost these days and these quick dopamine hits give them short term relief but long term pain.

Like many things in life- this goes deeper than fantasy football and gambling. This is more how do you create healthier spaces and structure in society for people to feel confident and better about themselves so that they can have a healthier relationship to discretionary activities such as posting on this forum?

I’ve struggled with fantasy football for years- especially dealing with the outcomes out of your control. It’s getting better but it does get frustrating.

Unfortunately the incentives in capitalism are to capitalize on opportunities in today’s society: shortcomings with younger individuals

 

[Joe Bryant]

By far one of the funniest debates on this board was how Fantasy Football was not gambling. Guess which side, by and large, argued it wasn't, vehemently. Hilarious.

Fortunately, we all can access the past discussions. What is the link for what you're talking about?

I'd like to see exactly what was actually said. Especially if it was vehement. Or hilarious.

This on on FF and Gambling https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/is-ff-gambling.335126/

Long time FBG Staffer Jason Wood posted this in 2007 https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/is-ff-gambling.335126/post-7199127

Playing fantasy football isn't gambling. Placing monies into a kitty to be paid out based on the outcome of said fantasy football league is, of course, gambling.

We had this on DFS and Gambling https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/dfs-and-gambling-a-discussion.687917/page-6

Which link are you talking about that was one of the funniest debates ever on the board. And what was hilarious?

Sorry if I struck a cord. Did not mean to do so. I just remember, fondly I might add, a rather silly debate. It had nothing to do with you and no intention of offense, I promise, and apologize if it was taken as such.

Wow, I did not mean to strike a cord and if it matters, fantasy football has no correlation to gambling in any way.

Zero offense and zero need for apology.

When you said by far one of the funniest debates ever where people argued vehemently on one side was hilarious, it caught my eye when I didn't remember that.

That's why I asked for a link so I could better understand what you meant. One of the best things about the forum is the ability to easily search past discussions.

 

[Ruffrodys05]

I'm unsure if I have a strong stance one way or the other with regards to illegal/legalized gambling. It seems to me that it is a very personal choice/decision how one views gambling.

I am a longtime FF player, participating every year in season-long leagues with cash prizes and occasionally participating in leagues where the top "prize" is bragging rights. I believe each type of league is technically gambling. In each type of league I am betting on myself to be successful, regardless of "prize."

I am also a person with a highly addictive personality. Other than a severe cocaine addiction mid-eighties to mid-nineties, which I thankfully walked away from, I have been fortunate enough to keep a lid on my addictive personality. Do I enjoy a drink or two, a toke or three of weed, splurging on a scratch-off or two, swinging into a real casino, or submitting a ticket on DraftKings? Damn right I do. Here's the thing though, I never spend more than I can afford to do without.

As far as gambling for $$ goes, I EXPECT to lose. If I somehow win some $$ I consider it a blessing. I might continue to gamble but never more than I expected to lose to begin with.

Not sure who mentioned it first in this thread, or who agreed but, in my eyes responsible gambling is a personal responsibility. Not a responsibility for the government to dictate.

I appreciate the article @Joe Bryant . Unfortunately I don't find anything in the article surprising at all. I'm going to reign it in at this point because any more comments from me will be rightfully perceived as turning this thread into a political one. I have no interest in being suspended or banned.

Thanks for the opportunity to post.

 

[JohnnyU]

I am also a person with a highly addictive personality. Other than a severe cocaine addiction mid-eighties to mid-nineties, which I thankfully walked away from, I have been fortunate enough to keep a lid on my addictive personality. Do I enjoy a drink or two, a toke or three of weed, splurging on a scratch-off or two, swinging into a real casino, or submitting a ticket on DraftKings? Damn right I do. Here's the thing though, I never spend more than I can afford to do without.

I'm not saying you are not telling the truth in that last statement, but most problem gamblers lie about saying they are not spending more than they can afford to do without. That is a fact. I agree gambling of any kind is a personal choice. It doesn't matter because the cat is already out of the bag. I personally thought it as better when you had to plan a vacation to Las Vegas or Atlantic City if you wanted to gamble, but that's just me.

 

[Ruffrodys05]

I am also a person with a highly addictive personality. Other than a severe cocaine addiction mid-eighties to mid-nineties, which I thankfully walked away from, I have been fortunate enough to keep a lid on my addictive personality. Do I enjoy a drink or two, a toke or three of weed, splurging on a scratch-off or two, swinging into a real casino, or submitting a ticket on DraftKings? Damn right I do. Here's the thing though, I never spend more than I can afford to do without.

most problem gamblers lie about saying they are not spending more than they can afford to do without. That is a fact.

Yes, I agree. All gamblers with a problem are addicted to it. Addicts, generally, lie profusely. I consider myself very fortunate to have not fallen into the addicted gambler hole. Then again, I believe I've scratched that gambling itch by participating every year in season-long FF leagues with cash prizes. 20+/- years ago I played in a few each year. Now, just one.

I guess I fall into the "gambling should be legal" group.

If 5% of gamblers account for 70% of revenues then the flip-side must be true. That 95% of gamblers account for 30% or less of revenues. At least some small percentage of gamblers must account for revenue loss too, no?

To me, this doesn't appear to be a problem that necessitates government intervention. I would not oppose a limit or a restriction on the frequency of gambling advertisements though.

 

[Smack Tripper]

I don't play Magic the gathering or some of these card game type deals, but if I'm not mistaken, do you walk with the other players cards with it? Is that gambling? Letter of the law I suppose so, but it doesn't feel like it.

Fantasy football is closer to gambling but it FEELS in the realm of hobby. Maybe denial or splitting hairs.

 

[JohnnyU]

I am also a person with a highly addictive personality. Other than a severe cocaine addiction mid-eighties to mid-nineties, which I thankfully walked away from, I have been fortunate enough to keep a lid on my addictive personality. Do I enjoy a drink or two, a toke or three of weed, splurging on a scratch-off or two, swinging into a real casino, or submitting a ticket on DraftKings? Damn right I do. Here's the thing though, I never spend more than I can afford to do without.

most problem gamblers lie about saying they are not spending more than they can afford to do without. That is a fact.

Yes, I agree. All gamblers with a problem are addicted to it. Addicts, generally, lie profusely. I consider myself very fortunate to have not fallen into the addicted gambler hole. Then again, I believe I've scratched that gambling itch by participating every year in season-long FF leagues with cash prizes. 20+/- years ago I played in a few each year. Now, just one.

I guess I fall into the "gambling should be legal" group.

If 5% of gamblers account for 70% of revenues then the flip-side must be true. That 95% of gamblers account for 30% or less of revenues. At least some small percentage of gamblers must account for revenue loss too, no?

To me, this doesn't appear to be a problem that necessitates government intervention. I would not oppose a limit or a restriction on the frequency of gambling advertisements though.

I really like your paragraph. Why ban cigarette advertising a long time ago and allow gambling advertising?

 

[Smack Tripper]

I am also a person with a highly addictive personality. Other than a severe cocaine addiction mid-eighties to mid-nineties, which I thankfully walked away from, I have been fortunate enough to keep a lid on my addictive personality. Do I enjoy a drink or two, a toke or three of weed, splurging on a scratch-off or two, swinging into a real casino, or submitting a ticket on DraftKings? Damn right I do. Here's the thing though, I never spend more than I can afford to do without.

most problem gamblers lie about saying they are not spending more than they can afford to do without. That is a fact.

Yes, I agree. All gamblers with a problem are addicted to it. Addicts, generally, lie profusely. I consider myself very fortunate to have not fallen into the addicted gambler hole. Then again, I believe I've scratched that gambling itch by participating every year in season-long FF leagues with cash prizes. 20+/- years ago I played in a few each year. Now, just one.

I guess I fall into the "gambling should be legal" group.

If 5% of gamblers account for 70% of revenues then the flip-side must be true. That 95% of gamblers account for 30% or less of revenues. At least some small percentage of gamblers must account for revenue loss too, no?

To me, this doesn't appear to be a problem that necessitates government intervention. I would not oppose a limit or a restriction on the frequency of gambling advertisements though.

I really like your paragraph. Why ban cigarette advertising a long time ago and allow gambling advertising?

Because you don't lose money with second hand sports betting

 

[JohnnyU]

I am also a person with a highly addictive personality. Other than a severe cocaine addiction mid-eighties to mid-nineties, which I thankfully walked away from, I have been fortunate enough to keep a lid on my addictive personality. Do I enjoy a drink or two, a toke or three of weed, splurging on a scratch-off or two, swinging into a real casino, or submitting a ticket on DraftKings? Damn right I do. Here's the thing though, I never spend more than I can afford to do without.

most problem gamblers lie about saying they are not spending more than they can afford to do without. That is a fact.

Yes, I agree. All gamblers with a problem are addicted to it. Addicts, generally, lie profusely. I consider myself very fortunate to have not fallen into the addicted gambler hole. Then again, I believe I've scratched that gambling itch by participating every year in season-long FF leagues with cash prizes. 20+/- years ago I played in a few each year. Now, just one.

I guess I fall into the "gambling should be legal" group.

If 5% of gamblers account for 70% of revenues then the flip-side must be true. That 95% of gamblers account for 30% or less of revenues. At least some small percentage of gamblers must account for revenue loss too, no?

To me, this doesn't appear to be a problem that necessitates government intervention. I would not oppose a limit or a restriction on the frequency of gambling advertisements though.

I really like your paragraph. Why ban cigarette advertising a long time ago and allow gambling advertising?

Because you don't lose money with second hand sports betting

Haven’t they reduced where you can smoke. Cigarette advertising has nothing to do with that. It was aimed at younger people. Gambling advertising draws younger people in as well.

 

[Ruffrodys05]

I am also a person with a highly addictive personality. Other than a severe cocaine addiction mid-eighties to mid-nineties, which I thankfully walked away from, I have been fortunate enough to keep a lid on my addictive personality. Do I enjoy a drink or two, a toke or three of weed, splurging on a scratch-off or two, swinging into a real casino, or submitting a ticket on DraftKings? Damn right I do. Here's the thing though, I never spend more than I can afford to do without.

most problem gamblers lie about saying they are not spending more than they can afford to do without. That is a fact.

Yes, I agree. All gamblers with a problem are addicted to it. Addicts, generally, lie profusely. I consider myself very fortunate to have not fallen into the addicted gambler hole. Then again, I believe I've scratched that gambling itch by participating every year in season-long FF leagues with cash prizes. 20+/- years ago I played in a few each year. Now, just one.

I guess I fall into the "gambling should be legal" group.

If 5% of gamblers account for 70% of revenues then the flip-side must be true. That 95% of gamblers account for 30% or less of revenues. At least some small percentage of gamblers must account for revenue loss too, no?

To me, this doesn't appear to be a problem that necessitates government intervention. I would not oppose a limit or a restriction on the frequency of gambling advertisements though.

I really like your paragraph. Why ban cigarette advertising a long time ago and allow gambling advertising?

Because you don't lose money with second hand sports betting

This statement doesn't track at all, not one iota. There have been more than plenty of second hand non-gambling individuals who've lost money, vehicles and homes because their spouse was addicted to gambling. It is possible that some even lost their lives.

 

[JohnnyU]

I am also a person with a highly addictive personality. Other than a severe cocaine addiction mid-eighties to mid-nineties, which I thankfully walked away from, I have been fortunate enough to keep a lid on my addictive personality. Do I enjoy a drink or two, a toke or three of weed, splurging on a scratch-off or two, swinging into a real casino, or submitting a ticket on DraftKings? Damn right I do. Here's the thing though, I never spend more than I can afford to do without.

most problem gamblers lie about saying they are not spending more than they can afford to do without. That is a fact.

Yes, I agree. All gamblers with a problem are addicted to it. Addicts, generally, lie profusely. I consider myself very fortunate to have not fallen into the addicted gambler hole. Then again, I believe I've scratched that gambling itch by participating every year in season-long FF leagues with cash prizes. 20+/- years ago I played in a few each year. Now, just one.

I guess I fall into the "gambling should be legal" group.

If 5% of gamblers account for 70% of revenues then the flip-side must be true. That 95% of gamblers account for 30% or less of revenues. At least some small percentage of gamblers must account for revenue loss too, no?

To me, this doesn't appear to be a problem that necessitates government intervention. I would not oppose a limit or a restriction on the frequency of gambling advertisements though.

I really like your paragraph. Why ban cigarette advertising a long time ago and allow gambling advertising?

Because you don't lose money with second hand sports betting

This statement doesn't track at all, not one iota. There have been more than plenty of second hand non-gambling individuals who've lost money, vehicles and homes because their spouse was addicted to gambling. It is possible that some even lost their lives.

I never thought of that in my response, good posting. I just thought the 2nd hand smoke argument was lame when comparing cigarette ads with gambling ads.

 

[Todem]

Out here in CA we had to opportunity to vote for legalized gambling recently and it got trounced. I found it odd that that happened, but then again, CA does have a ton of Tribes with Casinos and they had a helluva anti campaign.

With that said, I listen to a ton of Eagles podcasts, where gambling is legal in PA. And just the radio/podcast NONSTOP gambling commercials I get from that small sample I dabble into is....a bit too much. I hate commercials regardless, but these are still like way way worse the way they try to tap into your fandom to bet on your favorite team and all. Not cool.

Thanks. Aside from the Tribes not wanting it legal for their own reasons of eliminating competition, how do you get the sense most people feel on this in California?

Everyone I talked to in real life voted to make it legal.

So it feels like it's not about the stuff talked about in the article. But the Tribes protecting their monopoly?

100%. It’s been very hard to legalize in any of the states with strong tribal casino presence.

The Seminole tribe have it all in Florida. Hard Rock Bet is the only legal way to wager on sports in Florida.

They have basically put pari-mutual casinos in the brink.

Horse racing is hanging on at Gulfstream park.

 

[Smack Tripper]

I am also a person with a highly addictive personality. Other than a severe cocaine addiction mid-eighties to mid-nineties, which I thankfully walked away from, I have been fortunate enough to keep a lid on my addictive personality. Do I enjoy a drink or two, a toke or three of weed, splurging on a scratch-off or two, swinging into a real casino, or submitting a ticket on DraftKings? Damn right I do. Here's the thing though, I never spend more than I can afford to do without.

most problem gamblers lie about saying they are not spending more than they can afford to do without. That is a fact.

Yes, I agree. All gamblers with a problem are addicted to it. Addicts, generally, lie profusely. I consider myself very fortunate to have not fallen into the addicted gambler hole. Then again, I believe I've scratched that gambling itch by participating every year in season-long FF leagues with cash prizes. 20+/- years ago I played in a few each year. Now, just one.

I guess I fall into the "gambling should be legal" group.

If 5% of gamblers account for 70% of revenues then the flip-side must be true. That 95% of gamblers account for 30% or less of revenues. At least some small percentage of gamblers must account for revenue loss too, no?

To me, this doesn't appear to be a problem that necessitates government intervention. I would not oppose a limit or a restriction on the frequency of gambling advertisements though.

I really like your paragraph. Why ban cigarette advertising a long time ago and allow gambling advertising?

Because you don't lose money with second hand sports betting

Haven’t they reduced where you can smoke. Cigarette advertising has nothing to do with that. It was aimed at younger people. Gambling advertising draws younger people in as well.

Thats fair, thats a dist

I am also a person with a highly addictive personality. Other than a severe cocaine addiction mid-eighties to mid-nineties, which I thankfully walked away from, I have been fortunate enough to keep a lid on my addictive personality. Do I enjoy a drink or two, a toke or three of weed, splurging on a scratch-off or two, swinging into a real casino, or submitting a ticket on DraftKings? Damn right I do. Here's the thing though, I never spend more than I can afford to do without.

most problem gamblers lie about saying they are not spending more than they can afford to do without. That is a fact.

Yes, I agree. All gamblers with a problem are addicted to it. Addicts, generally, lie profusely. I consider myself very fortunate to have not fallen into the addicted gambler hole. Then again, I believe I've scratched that gambling itch by participating every year in season-long FF leagues with cash prizes. 20+/- years ago I played in a few each year. Now, just one.

I guess I fall into the "gambling should be legal" group.

If 5% of gamblers account for 70% of revenues then the flip-side must be true. That 95% of gamblers account for 30% or less of revenues. At least some small percentage of gamblers must account for revenue loss too, no?

To me, this doesn't appear to be a problem that necessitates government intervention. I would not oppose a limit or a restriction on the frequency of gambling advertisements though.

I really like your paragraph. Why ban cigarette advertising a long time ago and allow gambling advertising?

Because you don't lose money with second hand sports betting

This statement doesn't track at all, not one iota. There have been more than plenty of second hand non-gambling individuals who've lost money, vehicles and homes because their spouse was addicted to gambling. It is possible that some even lost their lives.

People die of second hand smoke. Any addiction has collateral damage of the type you state. Those are real and valid, I don't dispute. But those are more downstream.

I would be fair to say the same of drunk driving lets say. You can have nothing to do with the action and get swept up in it.

I put sports betting ads with things like Reverse mortgages or things like Car Shield that prey on poor people who are lower IQ. Scummy but an acceptable cost of freedom in my eyes.

Junk food is probably a bigger price drain and drives more premature mortality than anything we are discussing, but you let people choose how they'll live. Or die unfortuantely.

 

[JerryK]

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.