I agree. But the "problem" specified for the legalized gambling is that those that can't stop themselves need to be stopped. Raising taxes isn't going to stop that. Gambling in an of itself isn't dangerous like smoking. So minimizing the casual smokers has a benefit and the programs in place have done a good job eliminating those people which is a good thing. I don't think gambling has the same parameters with respect to "solving the problem" being discussed.
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)
- Thread starter Joe Bryant
- Start date
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
That's better than having to hear that BK commercial ad nauseam 100 times
Or that really WEIRD girl on the new iPhone 16 commercials that is trying to find out the name of this creepy older dude she has no business talking to and then looks oddly right into the camera like a sociopath that's discovered a new way to manipulate people
Desert_Power
Footballguy
I think there are a lot of policies we (governments) should be enacting to reduce car crashes/pedestrian deaths. I personally wouldn't put a restriction on advertising trucks during sporting events though.People still die from car crashes but I do not think anyone would make a case implementing a seatbelt tax was the wrong solution.whatabout cars take that to the bank brohansthere you go again with your look over here argument basically you say that if we have 10 bads we cant do anything about number 5 on that list of bads because clutch my pearls what about bads 1 through 4 oh my lord but thats not a winning argument at all bads are bads no matter what order you rank them and they deserve to be addressed and as a society you address the bads on a catch as catch can basis when an opportunity presents itself and if that time if now and there is a critical mass to do it then go for it but to simply say its in the middle dont bother is not a supportable argument take that to the bank brohanthe idea that we cant address one issue that you dont consider to be the top issue without first addressing every other issue you rank above it is fuzzy thinking at best and shallow thinking at worst i mean i get it you are using every trick argument in the book and im sure you were great on the debate team how about we use a red herring or a logical fallacy next or throw a no true scotsman in there brohan in the end we are a pretty intelligent species and capable of working on more than one issue at once take that to the bank bromigothere is obviously a line on all of this and finding it wont be easy but the slipperly slope argument you are trying to make is disingenous and i know you are smart enough to know that take that to the bank brohani think everyone knows that booze and cigarettes should probably be illegal too but they are too engrained gambling however is only sort of a johnny come lately to the legal world and as such there is still time to stop it if we want to as a society take that to the bank brohans
Explain to me the argument where things like alcohol and sugar, causes of the things below amongst many other negative impacts, are legal, but gambling should be illegal because it's "too dangerous".
- The Alcohol-Related Disease Impact application estimates that each year there are more than 178,000 deaths (approximately 120,000 male deaths and 59,000 female deaths) attributable to excessive alcohol use
- In 2022, alcohol-impaired driving fatalities accounted for 13,524 deaths (or 32% of overall driving fatalities)
- According to the most recent estimate from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 21.0% of suicide decedents have blood alcohol concentrations of 0.1% or more.
- New Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) research suggests that roughly 180,000 obesity-related deaths worldwide—including 25,000 Americans—are associated with the consumption of sugary drinks.
Roughly 180,000 deaths worldwide linked to sugary drink consumption | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
New Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) research suggests that roughly 180,000 obesity-related deaths worldwide—including 25,000 Americans—are associatedwww.hsph.harvard.edu
And of course alcohol has even greater impacts on all the things mentioned in the betting article (domestic violence, financial stress, stress on our healthcare system, etc).
What about sugar?
And it's hardly just sugar/alcohol here. Those are just a couple that blow gambling out of the water in terms of negative impacts. It's a zillion things that we trade negative impacts for fun/convenience.
The article linked to the study that shows gambling increases domestic violence. That same source also wrote studies about how technology increases domestic violence, and how religious affiliation increases domestic violence. Time to ban smartphones and religion?
A line would imply that sports gambling is at the top of the list and we need to draw a line where things above it are illegal and below it are legal. But sports gambling is in the middle of the list. There's no line to draw, it's arbitrarily picking one thing out of the middle, which makes no sense.
A lot of the studies reference in the articles are fake "gotchas" intentionally provided without context of how that measures against other things that we find to be harmless. You can go to the same source of those studies and find 100 other studies linking 100 other things to similar or even worse versions of those results. But it gets more clicks to say "gambling can be linked to an increase in domestic violence" than to say "gambling is the 157th most correlated thing to domestic violence, behind things like technology, religion, etc". (yes that's a made up number for illustrative purposes).
It's not just a matter of "why this one and not that one"?
The matter at hand is that we have actively accepted as a society that some level of financial stress, domestic/criminal stress, and even death is a worthwhile trade off for fun and convenience. And the figures presented in the article fall well within that threshold that we have actively deemed tolerable.
The irresponsibility of the article is that it intentionally presents the data without that context, while driving home the actively pushed implication that it is too much burden in exchange for fun. It neglects to place that in the context that we already actively accept that burden for fun in hundreds of other cases. The same article with the same kind of data could be written about iPhones or Religion or automobiles or 100 other things. And the point there is not "why single just this one out" but rather that we've already deemed that that level of stress on some part of society is a worthwhile tradeoff for society as a whole not just being a bunch of people couped up all day reading by candlelight for 12 hours a day to make sure no one gets hurt (wait that won't work either, cue the study about reading and its affect on eyesight).
If the argument is that we've overestimated what level of societal stress is worth it for fun and convenience (an argument which I've not yet seen anyone make, including the author of the article), then it makes no sense to change it by randomly picking something out of the middle.
The point isn't one bad vs another. None of them are necessarily bad when weighed against we as a society needing to have fun and convenience.
How many deaths per year are the convenience of cars worth? How many deaths per year are the fun of roller coasters worth? How many bankruptcies per year is the fun of gambling worth? How many deaths per year is the good taste of sugar worth? How many domestic abuse incidents over text messages is SMS technology worth? How many brain injuries is the fun of football worth?
It's not that they're bad and we know we need to make them illegal but just haven't gotten to those other ones yet, it's that we've actively accepted that the fun/convenience these things provide is worth some number of people dying or having major problems every year. The figures presented in the article are well within the tolerances that we've accepted as worth it for fun and/or convenience, but they are presented intentionally without that context. The only difference with gambling is advertising. And by advertising I mean advertising to you, via articles like these, that some people having financial stress is not a worthy tradeoff for everyone else to have fun, even though you have already fundamentally accepted that it is.
Desert_Power
Footballguy
Still manages to pimp Draftkings. The optimal viewing experience of anything is no commercials.
Self discipline. A lot of people simply don’t have it.
Accountability- a foreign concept with todays super sensitive society.
Anyway.
JAA
Footballguy
I respectfully disagree
My speculation is smokers havent stopped smoking per se, but what also is true is the barriers to entry of the habbit a been significantly increased and cigarette ads are not in our face everywhere. So the trend of new smokers has continued to go down, which is what we want. I believe this is exactly what we want for gambling (and others)
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Well, there's always the uplifting and informative political ad to break things up.
Desert_Power
Footballguy
I used to joke with a friend that it was always some version of “buy a truck, be a man and go to Lowe’s”. I guess gambling has crowded out home improvement
massraider
Footballguy
My degenerate gambler college buddies in Boston used to wager on what kind of commercial would be first for each commercial break.
We would watch the game at the bar relatively quietly, then you would hear loud screams when a Dodge Ram commercial came on.
This goes back to my point that smoking is unhealthy in an of itself. We want there to be no smokers at all because it is unhealthy for everyone (second hand smoke for non-smokers as an example).
However, gambling in an of itself is not damaging to people. If done responsibly there is no issue. The issue is people with addictions that take it to an extreme to the point of harming their life. To me this is a different problem than smoking so I don't think what is working with smoking will solve the issue that there is with gambling.
I see no problem with having new gamblers happening. They just need to be educated on what is responsible and where to draw limits. That should be the goal. Not eliminating gamblers. That is a big difference.
We would do this for the Super Bowl. Everyone at the party could "buy" poker chips and throughout the game yell out any bet they wanted to make and if someone else was on the other side they would accept it. "Next play is a pass - I'll take that bet" Play happens and a poker chip flies through the air to the winner. Next play will be for negative yards at 2-1 odds.....I'll take it. Play happens and chips fly through the air. It was awesome.
Capella
Footballguy
There’s one in Florida where a guy on the ad makes an EIGHTY EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLAR bet and wins like a 170k and it shows him celebrating. My wife later tells me that’s post Malone. But what an obscene ad to show. 88k bet! More than the average American makes in a year!The FanDuel ad seems pretty gross too.
"It's PARLAY tiiiime"
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.youtu.be
Kev4029
Footballguy
I'm behind on this thread so this may have been discussed but I think the immediacy of the results of sports gambling and the occasional wins make it more addictive. The lottery, even if you are playing Powerball, Mega Millions, and state lotto is only 7 drawings a week or whatever. I can't imagine there are too many people that are included to drop hundreds of dollars a week into the lotto. You could make hundreds of sports bets in that same time and win 40% of them and still lose hundreds or thousands of dollars.
Scratch tickets are little more nefarious because a gambler can get all those highs and lows from winning and losing in short succession and continue to seek that, but at least that has to be purchased in person.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
There’s one in Florida where a guy on the ad makes an EIGHTY EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLAR bet and wins like a 170k and it shows him celebrating. My wife later tells me that’s post Malone. But what an obscene ad to show. 88k bet! More than the average American makes in a year!The FanDuel ad seems pretty gross too.
"It's PARLAY tiiiime"
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
Even worse are the sports score apps or game apps that bombard kids with opportunities to bet 99 cents or $2.99 on props and live events with ridiculous odds, supported by actors celebrating with their new Lambos.
Agreed. That also is the answer to the sugar problem but that's not popular. And a whole different discussion.
There’s one in Florida where a guy on the ad makes an EIGHTY EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLAR bet and wins like a 170k and it shows him celebrating. My wife later tells me that’s post Malone. But what an obscene ad to show. 88k bet! More than the average American makes in a year!The FanDuel ad seems pretty gross too.
"It's PARLAY tiiiime"
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
Yes.
"You don't have to know sports. All you need is a feeling and a phone."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxb1XxcACZY&t=1s
The Gator
Footballguy
This is the crux of it for me. Sure it should be legal imo, just wish the leagues weren’t whores for injecting the betting into every facet of the game.
The gambling companies are offering lots of money. I can understand why companies take it.
The Gator
Footballguy
Sure, that’s a different way to say they’re greedy and don’t care about the public outcome. The NFL isn’t on its knees to the banks and betting is propping them up. It’s a joke money grab for billionaires to get more billions at the expense of public health and welfare.
titusbramble
Footballguy
People are always going to gamble. May as well let your states get a cut from licensing or whatever.
People are always going to get addicted to stuff, be it alcohol, drugs, big pharma products, cake, gambling, whatever. Some people just have an addictive personality. Most can handle anything in moderation, let the grown ups be grown ups. It works fine here where we can literally bet on anything - the Super Bowl coin toss, our version of Dancing With the Stars, Nathan's hot dog contest, your election, our election, whether it'll snow on Christmas Day, WWE, you name it, we can punt on it
People are always going to get addicted to stuff, be it alcohol, drugs, big pharma products, cake, gambling, whatever. Some people just have an addictive personality. Most can handle anything in moderation, let the grown ups be grown ups. It works fine here where we can literally bet on anything - the Super Bowl coin toss, our version of Dancing With the Stars, Nathan's hot dog contest, your election, our election, whether it'll snow on Christmas Day, WWE, you name it, we can punt on it
Zow
Footballguy
Wait, what? There are odds on an event with a predetermined outcome?
(As I type that, I do recall that some oddsmakers were making bets on who would be the final king in GoTs - which ruined it for me because Bran was the favorite which made no sense to me at the time and therefore ruined the show for me).
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
titusbramble
Footballguy
The Gator
Footballguy
:laugh reaction:
Understood. It's an interesting situation. I've been pretty intentional about not leaning into the sports book side of the business.
It's cost us a lot of money I'm sure.
Years ago, I bought Bettingguys.com thinking we'd launch a second site the same way our competitors have as they go all in on embracing it and making money from the ads.
I decided that wasn't the direction we wanted to take it. And instead, we've leaned back into the Home League side of Fantasy Football. Which I think is the backbone and foundation of Fantasy Sports.
It's interesting when you see competitors buy big things or purchase tools and tech to better compete with us knowing some of their revenue streams. But I'm ok with it.
JAA
Footballguy
So ....
People who have 1 cigarette a day are prolly fine. For the folks who abuse cigarettes, they are unhealthy.
Anything outside of moderation is not healthy - sugar, alcohol, tobacco, porn
, etc.
JAA
Footballguy
... and yet there has to be a law to wear seatbelts and store guns in safe places. And a whole different discussion
Zow
Footballguy
Oh, for sure. Despite a couple of good scenes and that one good episode in the final season that was a disaster.
I do distinctly remember though finding out that Vegas had put out odd for the next king. When I saw them my internal dialogue was:
"Daenerys has to be the favorite with maybe Sansa close behind..."
"Wait, what? Bran has the best odds??? That makes no sense..."
"... unless Vegas knows something... which they probably do because it's been written and filmed already..."
"Oh, ****! It's going to be Bran?? This is going to be so stupid unless they tie this together really well."
Spoiler alert: they didn't.
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
I was thinking prescription ads were a bad comparator, while tobacco, alcohol and gambling are all fairly harmful, both to individuals and society.Definitely questions about where the line is. I would put prescriptions and gambling (including state lotteries) on the cigarettes side of the line personally.The takeaway is cigarettes are bad, but online gambling, booze, and any prescription you can ask your dr. about =
I wonder what percentage of users/participants for each vice are able to do so responsibly?
Capella
Footballguy
Yup. Arguably worse than the casual 88k bet visual. What an obscene ad.
Not sure your point here. I think the problem with smoking and the problem with gambling are two entirely different problems as I outlined in my previous post. Without defining the problem you are trying to solve it becomes impossible to figure out a solution.So ....
People who have 1 cigarette a day are prolly fine. For the folks who abuse cigarettes, they are unhealthy.
Anything outside of moderation is not healthy - sugar, alcohol, tobacco, porn
I don't agree the solution for cigarettes solves the problem with gambling because they are different problems.
JAA
Footballguy
You made an assumption that "smoking is unhealthy in an of itself". I am asserting that is not the case with the argument most things, if not all, are not unhealthy if done in moderation. That moderation is our issue, not the specific behavior.Not sure your point here. I think the problem with smoking and the problem with gambling are two entirely different problems as I outlined in my previous post. Without defining the problem you are trying to solve it becomes impossible to figure out a solution.So ....
People who have 1 cigarette a day are prolly fine. For the folks who abuse cigarettes, they are unhealthy.
Anything outside of moderation is not healthy - sugar, alcohol, tobacco, porn
I don't agree the solution for cigarettes solves the problem with gambling because they are different problems.
General Malaise
Footballguy
Is it really worse today with legalized gambling on sports?
Take Draftkings - the state of Oregon's only legal option for wagering. If I want to use it, I have to fund it with cash from my bank or PayPal. I can't use a credit card. I can't bet unless I prepay to play.
Is that really worse than the days of having a bookie take your action on credit? Let's say a bookie gives you a credit line of $2,000 to wager - money you don't have, but credit you can use. And let's say you have a horrible weekend and use all that credit up, so on Monday, you owe a guy $2,000 and if you don't pay him, he may show up at your home or office and make things uncomfortable until you do pay.
I'd dare say the former model is better than the latter. Right?
Take Draftkings - the state of Oregon's only legal option for wagering. If I want to use it, I have to fund it with cash from my bank or PayPal. I can't use a credit card. I can't bet unless I prepay to play.
Is that really worse than the days of having a bookie take your action on credit? Let's say a bookie gives you a credit line of $2,000 to wager - money you don't have, but credit you can use. And let's say you have a horrible weekend and use all that credit up, so on Monday, you owe a guy $2,000 and if you don't pay him, he may show up at your home or office and make things uncomfortable until you do pay.
I'd dare say the former model is better than the latter. Right?
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
This seems like a good question for that guy on the old yellow board - The Gambler. Always had some words of wisdom and would likely have something to add to this.
I guess I disagree with that statement. Smoking is unhealthy in an of itself. Regardless of in moderation or not. The extent of the unhealthiness varies based on genetics, etc. But smoking is unhealthy regardless of the amount you do.You made an assumption that "smoking is unhealthy in an of itself". I am asserting that is not the case with the argument most things, if not all, are not unhealthy if done in moderation. That moderation is our issue, not the specific behavior.Not sure your point here. I think the problem with smoking and the problem with gambling are two entirely different problems as I outlined in my previous post. Without defining the problem you are trying to solve it becomes impossible to figure out a solution.So ....
People who have 1 cigarette a day are prolly fine. For the folks who abuse cigarettes, they are unhealthy.
Anything outside of moderation is not healthy - sugar, alcohol, tobacco, porn
I don't agree the solution for cigarettes solves the problem with gambling because they are different problems.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
I guess I disagree with that statement. Smoking is unhealthy in an of itself. Regardless of in moderation or not. The extent of the unhealthiness varies based on genetics, etc. But smoking is unhealthy regardless of the amount you do.You made an assumption that "smoking is unhealthy in an of itself". I am asserting that is not the case with the argument most things, if not all, are not unhealthy if done in moderation. That moderation is our issue, not the specific behavior.Not sure your point here. I think the problem with smoking and the problem with gambling are two entirely different problems as I outlined in my previous post. Without defining the problem you are trying to solve it becomes impossible to figure out a solution.So ....
People who have 1 cigarette a day are prolly fine. For the folks who abuse cigarettes, they are unhealthy.
Anything outside of moderation is not healthy - sugar, alcohol, tobacco, porn
I don't agree the solution for cigarettes solves the problem with gambling because they are different problems.
And smoking directly impacts the people around you. Not in a "well if you hurt yourself it really hurts your wife too" kind of way, but you're literally blowing poison onto other people and making their stuff smell bad to boot.
Desert_Power
Footballguy
There are really a few questions in one here.
Is it better for the responsible gambler? Undoubtedly yes
Is it better for the irresponsible gambler? I’d say mixed because the floor is higher (Draftkings isn’t going to break your legs or steal your money) but it’s much easier to get into
Is it better for sports? More mixed. They get a lot more money but that also a lot more potential for corruption
Is it better for society overall? Again mixed. I don’t necessarily agree with the root article’s conclusion but that seems to be the question it is asking
I think it's like a lot of temptations in life and it all boils down to self-discipline and personal responsibility. We're all tempted by one thing or another and it's up to us to control it. Maybe it's eating too much unhealthy food and we end up overweight. Maybe it's hooking up with too many dames and you end up with STDs or lots of kids. Maybe it's needing a new car every year so you end up filing for bankruptcy when you are between jobs and can't afford the card payments (along with the CC debt you accumulated).
I don't think it's really fair to say this one particular vice or another is better or easier for someone to handle. We all have some temptation that pulls at us harder than other things. It's all about controlling it.
I don't think it's really fair to say this one particular vice or another is better or easier for someone to handle. We all have some temptation that pulls at us harder than other things. It's all about controlling it.
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Hard agree.
But why do EPL matches and commentary have essentially zero talk of odds or gambling? Is it not legal to advertise or is it something else? Admittedly, I haven't watched that much coverage within the UK on Sky or whatever.
BassNBrew
Footballguy
I'd like to hear more about this.
The article says increased but then gives stats that gambling decreases domestic violence.i think everyone knows that booze and cigarettes should probably be illegal too but they are too engrained gambling however is only sort of a johnny come lately to the legal world and as such there is still time to stop it if we want to as a society take that to the bank brohans
Explain to me the argument where things like alcohol and sugar, causes of the things below amongst many other negative impacts, are legal, but gambling should be illegal because it's "too dangerous".
- The Alcohol-Related Disease Impact application estimates that each year there are more than 178,000 deaths (approximately 120,000 male deaths and 59,000 female deaths) attributable to excessive alcohol use
- In 2022, alcohol-impaired driving fatalities accounted for 13,524 deaths (or 32% of overall driving fatalities)
- According to the most recent estimate from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 21.0% of suicide decedents have blood alcohol concentrations of 0.1% or more.
- New Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) research suggests that roughly 180,000 obesity-related deaths worldwide—including 25,000 Americans—are associated with the consumption of sugary drinks.
Roughly 180,000 deaths worldwide linked to sugary drink consumption | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
New Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) research suggests that roughly 180,000 obesity-related deaths worldwide—including 25,000 Americans—are associated
And of course alcohol has even greater impacts on all the things mentioned in the betting article (domestic violence, financial stress, stress on our healthcare system, etc).
What about sugar?
And it's hardly just sugar/alcohol here. Those are just a couple that blow gambling out of the water in terms of negative impacts. It's a zillion things that we trade negative impacts for fun/convenience.
The article linked to the study that shows gambling increases domestic violence. That same source also wrote studies about how technology increases domestic violence, and how religious affiliation increases domestic violence. Time to ban smartphones and religion?
Harry Frogfish
Footballguy
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. Hysterical.
Guess which side, by and large, argued it wasn't, vehemently. Hysterical.
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
How is more accessible sports gambling better for society?
I understand many people find it enjoyable, some win, and companies make money from those who don’t. But overall, it seems like a mindless diversion, at best, not really contributing much to quality of life, with potential to cause a lot more harm than good, imo. It is considered a vice, after all.
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
Can you quote those stats?
Similar threads
