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

[The Z Machine]

Is it really worse today with legalized gambling on sports?

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

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.

If you start with the premise that the liberty to do more things of your choosing is inherently "good", then you might end up saying that legalized sports betting is "good for society".

I don't subscribe to that libertarian-ish philosophy, but I get the premise. I certainly don't enjoy restrictions on my liberty (e.g. not being able to throw away trash or recycling into street-side collection bins on Sunday).

 

[ChiefD]

You gotta know when to fold them.

 

[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. Hysterical.

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 hysterical.

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 hysterical?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Who cares whether fantasy football is gambling or not? Unless you're just here to argue some abstract moral point, "Is this gambling?" is nothing more than a semantic issue. The only important question is "Is this bad?"

Your March Madness pool is 100% gambling, just by the definition of what "gambling" is. But that's just semantics. Nobody thinks that March Madness pools are socially problematic. Nobody is pushing themselves into bankruptcy because they went a little too hard during NCAA season. It's gambling, and it's fine.

Likewise for fantasy football. If you're playing fantasy football for money, I consider that gambling. But that's fine. This is the kind of gambling that absolutely does not appeal to problem gamblers -- the time between placing the wager and collecting on the wager is way too long. My educated guess is that number of people who have developed financial problems due to fantasy football is trivial. The "problems" that we all identify with fantasy is how it changes our enjoyment of the game, sucks up time during the week due to roster management, and adds to our background level of stress/frustration, and those problems are highly dependent on the personality of each player. Financial worries don't even register when it comes to fantasy sports.

Again, sports betting is just totally different, especially when it's available online. It's apples and oranges. Some of these "whatabouts," like sugar, cars, fantasy sports, etc. just seem like attempts to change the subject.

 

[RCon]

I don't think identifying and discussing similar pastimes and "vices" are attempts to change the subject at all. When discussing policy, it absolutely makes sense to review prior policies, the success/failure thereof, and similarities/differences. When advocating for a given policy like "ban X" or "regulate X in P way", it's important to be able to distinguish why and how banning X might be different than banning Y or Z or regulating via P might be different than regulating via Q. You've identified one particularly compelling difference in basic fantasy football versus sports gambling, such that most people would likely conclude that they should be regulated differently. That doesn't extend to "sports gambling is therefore unlike everything else and can't be compared to any other vices", however. Bans/regulations on tobacco, marijuana, alcohol, DFS, fast cars, state lotteries, and non-sports gambling, and even bans/regulations in other countries should all be studied and considered when building policy around sports gambling.

 

[BassNBrew]

The article says increased but then gives stats that gambling decreases domestic violence.

Can you quote those stats?

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.

Gambling represents a 9% increase. Your team being upset results in a 10% increase. Seems like if we transition people away from rooting for teams to gambling we’d see a 10% decrease in domestic violence.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Who cares whether fantasy football is gambling or not? Unless you're just here to argue some abstract moral point, "Is this gambling?" is nothing more than a semantic issue. The only important question is "Is this bad?"

Your March Madness pool is 100% gambling, just by the definition of what "gambling" is. But that's just semantics. Nobody thinks that March Madness pools are socially problematic. Nobody is pushing themselves into bankruptcy because they went a little too hard during NCAA season. It's gambling, and it's fine.

Likewise for fantasy football. If you're playing fantasy football for money, I consider that gambling. But that's fine. This is the kind of gambling that absolutely does not appeal to problem gamblers -- the time between placing the wager and collecting on the wager is way too long. My educated guess is that number of people who have developed financial problems due to fantasy football is trivial. The "problems" that we all identify with fantasy is how it changes our enjoyment of the game, sucks up time during the week due to roster management, and adds to our background level of stress/frustration, and those problems are highly dependent on the personality of each player. Financial worries don't even register when it comes to fantasy sports.

Again, sports betting is just totally different, especially when it's available online. It's apples and oranges. Some of these "whatabouts," like sugar, cars, fantasy sports, etc. just seem like attempts to change the subject.

 

[JAA]

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)

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.

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.

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.

I don't agree the solution for cigarettes solves the problem with gambling because they are different problems.

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.

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.

I would love to see some stats on this. I realize it is not worth actually going down this path and Im asking rhetorically, but I bet I could make a case alcohol and sugar are worse than tobacco.

My point - you believe tobacco is unhealthy, period. Im presenting that is your opinion and thus we should discuss how to allow moderation but limit excess (alcohol, tobacco, sugar, porn , etc)

 

[JAA]

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)

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.

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.

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.

I don't agree the solution for cigarettes solves the problem with gambling because they are different problems.

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.

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.

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.

• Alcohol hurts others if you get behind a wheel
• Sugar hurts others if you become obese and are a burden on the healthcare system

 

[The Z Machine]

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)

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.

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.

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.

I don't agree the solution for cigarettes solves the problem with gambling because they are different problems.

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.

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.

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.

• Alcohol hurts others if you get behind a wheel
• Sugar hurts others if you become obese and are a burden on the healthcare system

And your family having to deal with your chronic illnesses like diabeetus.

 

[Spartans Rule]

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.

Gambling represents a 9% increase. Your team being upset results in a 10% increase. Seems like if we transition people away from rooting for teams to gambling we’d see a 10% decrease in domestic violence.

I read that as legal gambling adds an additional 9% on top of the 10%.

 

[Gally]

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)

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.

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.

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.

I don't agree the solution for cigarettes solves the problem with gambling because they are different problems.

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.

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.

I would love to see some stats on this. I realize it is not worth actually going down this path and Im asking rhetorically, but I bet I could make a case alcohol and sugar are worse than tobacco.

My point - you believe tobacco is unhealthy, period. Im presenting that is your opinion and thus we should discuss how to allow moderation but limit excess (alcohol, tobacco, sugar, porn , etc)

Agree that alcohol and sugar also are similar to alcohol. No argument there. My argument is that problem with gambling is different than the problem with those vices. You said use the approach for smoking with gambling because it worked well with smoking. I said the problem is different between those two things. I am not saying alcohol is different than smoking. I agree. Alcohol in and of itself is unhealthy (like smoking) to some degree. So the problem is different. Gambling in and of itself is not unhealthy. If you gamble moderately there is zero harm. It is a form of entertainment that does not affect your health like smoking.

My entire premise was what worked for smoking won't work for the gambling problem because they are different problems.

 

[Gally]

I would love to see some stats on this. I realize it is not worth actually going down this path and Im asking rhetorically,

I know you said rhetorical however:

6 Myths About Smoking

Think you know all about smoking? Learn the facts behind popular myths about cigarettes and your health.

www.webmd.com

Health Effects of Smoking on Your Body

On top of lung diseases, smoking can cause poor vision, premature aging, cancer, and more. Learn what happens to your body when you smoke.

www.healthline.com

It seems clear that any amount of smoking is worse for your health than not smoking at all.

 

[BassNBrew]

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.

Gambling represents a 9% increase. Your team being upset results in a 10% increase. Seems like if we transition people away from rooting for teams to gambling we’d see a 10% decrease in domestic violence.

I read that as legal gambling adds an additional 9% on top of the 10%.

Possibly, but it's extremely poorly written and an example of bad journalism by the Athletic.

That said, is it reasonable to assume that someone is polling domestic abusers and asking if your home team lost and if you're gambling legally? What kind of sample size are we talking about in this study? Furthermore, I would assume it wouldn't really be "legal gambling" and would be "losing at legal gambling". It doesn't make sense that someone would win a bet and say you know, that's a good reason to abuse my partner.

 

[General Malaise]

Who cares whether fantasy football is gambling or not? Unless you're just here to argue some abstract moral point, "Is this gambling?" is nothing more than a semantic issue. The only important question is "Is this bad?"

Your March Madness pool is 100% gambling, just by the definition of what "gambling" is. But that's just semantics. Nobody thinks that March Madness pools are socially problematic. Nobody is pushing themselves into bankruptcy because they went a little too hard during NCAA season. It's gambling, and it's fine.

Likewise for fantasy football. If you're playing fantasy football for money, I consider that gambling. But that's fine. This is the kind of gambling that absolutely does not appeal to problem gamblers -- the time between placing the wager and collecting on the wager is way too long. My educated guess is that number of people who have developed financial problems due to fantasy football is trivial. The "problems" that we all identify with fantasy is how it changes our enjoyment of the game, sucks up time during the week due to roster management, and adds to our background level of stress/frustration, and those problems are highly dependent on the personality of each player. Financial worries don't even register when it comes to fantasy sports.

Again, sports betting is just totally different, especially when it's available online. It's apples and oranges. Some of these "whatabouts," like sugar, cars, fantasy sports, etc. just seem like attempts to change the subject.

Would you consider Fantasy Football and Game of Chance or a Game of Skill? I kind of lean towards it being both - you've got some say over your success, but you have no control over the outcomes of player performance.

Anyhow, good perspective from you per usual.

 

[JAA]

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)

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.

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.

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.

I don't agree the solution for cigarettes solves the problem with gambling because they are different problems.

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.

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.

I would love to see some stats on this. I realize it is not worth actually going down this path and Im asking rhetorically, but I bet I could make a case alcohol and sugar are worse than tobacco.

My point - you believe tobacco is unhealthy, period. Im presenting that is your opinion and thus we should discuss how to allow moderation but limit excess (alcohol, tobacco, sugar, porn , etc)

Agree that alcohol and sugar also are similar to alcohol. No argument there. My argument is that problem with gambling is different than the problem with those vices. You said use the approach for smoking with gambling because it worked well with smoking. I said the problem is different between those two things. I am not saying alcohol is different than smoking. I agree. Alcohol in and of itself is unhealthy (like smoking) to some degree. So the problem is different. Gambling in and of itself is not unhealthy. If you gamble moderately there is zero harm. It is a form of entertainment that does not affect your health like smoking.

My entire premise was what worked for smoking won't work for the gambling problem because they are different problems.

Understood. Agree to disagree

 

[General Malaise]

The article says increased but then gives stats that gambling decreases domestic violence.

Can you quote those stats?

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.

Gambling represents a 9% increase. Your team being upset results in a 10% increase. Seems like if we transition people away from rooting for teams to gambling we’d see a 10% decrease in domestic violence.

I pulled up the paper from the Oregon economists and it's pretty thorough, so anybody curious about the entirety of their paper can view it here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4938642

I thought their conclusion was interesting given the headline plucked out of it about increase DV rates, especially the bolded:

6 Conclusion

Policymakers and legislatures are advocating for the legalization of sports betting due to its potential tax benefits. Sports betting can generate large tax revenues from displacing the black market, and increase in the number of people who gamble in the state due to the creation of a new market or people deciding to place a bet in that state rather than Nevada. In 2022, total taxes collected among states with legalized sports betting totaled almost $1.5 billion.33 On the other hand, sports gambling legalization can generate negative externalities, such as displaced tax revenues in other gambling markets (Humphreys 2021; Can et al. 2023)

Another potential negative externality arising from sports gambling legalization is the amplification of emotional cues. In this paper, we are the first to investigate the causal relationship between legalized sports gambling and IPV. Using data from the 2011 to 2022 NIBRS, we document that legalized sports betting amplifies emotional cues, as evidenced by increased IPV when a fan’s home team unexpectedly loses.

Although we shed light on some potential consequences of allowing sports gambling, we do not necessarily conclude that states should reverse such legalization. Following a similar line of thought as Humphreys (2021), who suggests that states should carefully examine how legalizing sports betting impacts tax revenues to “mitigate the fiscal consequences of legalization,” we suggest that states should examine how they can use state tax revenues from sports betting to mitigate these negative externalities.34 For instance, states can 33This data does not include tax revenue in Montana or Oregon. 34While doing back-of-the-envelope calculations to estimate whether the net social costs from emotional 18fund advertising campaigns—perhaps during commercial breaks during sporting events—to raise public awareness of the potential consequences of participating in sports gambling or committing family violence. Moreover, states can also invest their tax revenues in domestic violence shelters or hotlines to assist the victims or in counseling services to offer support for potential offenders.

 

[General Malaise]

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.

Gambling represents a 9% increase. Your team being upset results in a 10% increase. Seems like if we transition people away from rooting for teams to gambling we’d see a 10% decrease in domestic violence.

I read that as legal gambling adds an additional 9% on top of the 10%.

Possibly, but it's extremely poorly written and an example of bad journalism by the Athletic.

That said, is it reasonable to assume that someone is polling domestic abusers and asking if your home team lost and if you're gambling legally? What kind of sample size are we talking about in this study? Furthermore, I would assume it wouldn't really be "legal gambling" and would be "losing at legal gambling". It doesn't make sense that someone would win a bet and say you know, that's a good reason to abuse my partner.

Atlantic. Don't you dare besmirch the Athletic!

 

[General Malaise]

With the rampant trend of myriad viral videos showing guys react to their 'home teams' losing by destroying TVs and other items in the house, I'm not shocked that domestic violence happens after a home team loses, but is this because of gambling losses or just men who can't control their tempers when the Cowboys* lose another one?


*I don't mean to single out Dallas, you can insert any team there, it just seams like Cowboy fan takes losses hard.

Signed,

Cowboy fan

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Who cares whether fantasy football is gambling or not? Unless you're just here to argue some abstract moral point, "Is this gambling?" is nothing more than a semantic issue. The only important question is "Is this bad?"

Your March Madness pool is 100% gambling, just by the definition of what "gambling" is. But that's just semantics. Nobody thinks that March Madness pools are socially problematic. Nobody is pushing themselves into bankruptcy because they went a little too hard during NCAA season. It's gambling, and it's fine.

Likewise for fantasy football. If you're playing fantasy football for money, I consider that gambling. But that's fine. This is the kind of gambling that absolutely does not appeal to problem gamblers -- the time between placing the wager and collecting on the wager is way too long. My educated guess is that number of people who have developed financial problems due to fantasy football is trivial. The "problems" that we all identify with fantasy is how it changes our enjoyment of the game, sucks up time during the week due to roster management, and adds to our background level of stress/frustration, and those problems are highly dependent on the personality of each player. Financial worries don't even register when it comes to fantasy sports.

Again, sports betting is just totally different, especially when it's available online. It's apples and oranges. Some of these "whatabouts," like sugar, cars, fantasy sports, etc. just seem like attempts to change the subject.

I agree with your larger point but there is a bridge between the classic fantasy football league you describe and the phenom of DFS, which seems anecdotally to be the hottest moving area of what is really pure sports gambling. DFS involves same day bets, live bets, etc. with immediate results. DraftKings and Fanduel started out offering essentially routine fantasy baseball and football league competitions and are now full-blown online casinos and have grown to become massive, dominant players in the online gambling space overnight. I've been sitting at home with my teenage son - he's scrolling his phone checking basketball scores and he'll make a comment about whether some player will have X rebounds or points in the second half of a game neither of us cares about. It makes me a bit uneasy because teenagers are so easily influenced on things like this and it is very easy for them to make casual bets on what seems to me to be very much adjacent to fantasy sports.

 

[Gally]

Understood. Agree to disagree

May I ask what you think the "problem" that needs to be solved with respect to gambling? Since we seem to disagree on this fundamental principle I think it would be helpful if that were to be defined. I think that goes to the crux of the disagreement here.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Who cares whether fantasy football is gambling or not? Unless you're just here to argue some abstract moral point, "Is this gambling?" is nothing more than a semantic issue. The only important question is "Is this bad?"

Your March Madness pool is 100% gambling, just by the definition of what "gambling" is. But that's just semantics. Nobody thinks that March Madness pools are socially problematic. Nobody is pushing themselves into bankruptcy because they went a little too hard during NCAA season. It's gambling, and it's fine.

Likewise for fantasy football. If you're playing fantasy football for money, I consider that gambling. But that's fine. This is the kind of gambling that absolutely does not appeal to problem gamblers -- the time between placing the wager and collecting on the wager is way too long. My educated guess is that number of people who have developed financial problems due to fantasy football is trivial. The "problems" that we all identify with fantasy is how it changes our enjoyment of the game, sucks up time during the week due to roster management, and adds to our background level of stress/frustration, and those problems are highly dependent on the personality of each player. Financial worries don't even register when it comes to fantasy sports.

Again, sports betting is just totally different, especially when it's available online. It's apples and oranges. Some of these "whatabouts," like sugar, cars, fantasy sports, etc. just seem like attempts to change the subject.

I agree with your larger point but there is a bridge between the classic fantasy football league you describe and the phenom of DFS, which seems anecdotally to be the hottest moving area of what is really pure sports gambling. DFS involves same day bets, live bets, etc. with immediate results. DraftKings and Fanduel started out offering essentially routine fantasy baseball and football league competitions and are now full-blown online casinos and have grown to become massive, dominant players in the online gambling space overnight. I've been sitting at home with my teenage son - he's scrolling his phone checking basketball scores and he'll make a comment about whether some player will have X rebounds or points in the second half of a game neither of us cares about. It makes me a bit uneasy because teenagers are so easily influenced on things like this and it is very easy for them to make casual bets on what seems to me to be very much adjacent to fantasy sports.

Agreed, and thanks for the noting this.

 

[JAA]

Understood. Agree to disagree

May I ask what you think the "problem" that needs to be solved with respect to gambling? Since we seem to disagree on this fundamental principle I think it would be helpful if that were to be defined. I think that goes to the crux of the disagreement here.

The problem IMO is that gambling is a Nice To Have, dopamine habit forming activity, which has the propensity to destroy people's lives. I include Alcohol, Sugar, porn , and tobacco in this group.

 

[Gally]

Understood. Agree to disagree

May I ask what you think the "problem" that needs to be solved with respect to gambling? Since we seem to disagree on this fundamental principle I think it would be helpful if that were to be defined. I think that goes to the crux of the disagreement here.

The problem IMO is that gambling is a Nice To Have, dopamine habit forming activity, which has the propensity to destroy people's lives. I include Alcohol, Sugar, porn , and tobacco in this group.

So any dopamine habit forming activity needs to be banned? So you treat dopamine inducing activities as inherently bad for your health because of it's addictive qualities?

ETA: I am just trying to understand the concept/reasoning here.

 

[BassNBrew]

The article says increased but then gives stats that gambling decreases domestic violence.

Can you quote those stats?

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.

Gambling represents a 9% increase. Your team being upset results in a 10% increase. Seems like if we transition people away from rooting for teams to gambling we’d see a 10% decrease in domestic violence.

I pulled up the paper from the Oregon economists and it's pretty thorough, so anybody curious about the entirety of their paper can view it here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4938642

I thought their conclusion was interesting given the headline plucked out of it about increase DV rates, especially the bolded:

6 Conclusion

Policymakers and legislatures are advocating for the legalization of sports betting due to its potential tax benefits. Sports betting can generate large tax revenues from displacing the black market, and increase in the number of people who gamble in the state due to the creation of a new market or people deciding to place a bet in that state rather than Nevada. In 2022, total taxes collected among states with legalized sports betting totaled almost $1.5 billion.33 On the other hand, sports gambling legalization can generate negative externalities, such as displaced tax revenues in other gambling markets (Humphreys 2021; Can et al. 2023)

Another potential negative externality arising from sports gambling legalization is the amplification of emotional cues. In this paper, we are the first to investigate the causal relationship between legalized sports gambling and IPV. Using data from the 2011 to 2022 NIBRS, we document that legalized sports betting amplifies emotional cues, as evidenced by increased IPV when a fan’s home team unexpectedly loses.

Although we shed light on some potential consequences of allowing sports gambling, we do not necessarily conclude that states should reverse such legalization. Following a similar line of thought as Humphreys (2021), who suggests that states should carefully examine how legalizing sports betting impacts tax revenues to “mitigate the fiscal consequences of legalization,” we suggest that states should examine how they can use state tax revenues from sports betting to mitigate these negative externalities.34 For instance, states can 33This data does not include tax revenue in Montana or Oregon. 34While doing back-of-the-envelope calculations to estimate whether the net social costs from emotional 18fund advertising campaigns—perhaps during commercial breaks during sporting events—to raise public awareness of the potential consequences of participating in sports gambling or committing family violence. Moreover, states can also invest their tax revenues in domestic violence shelters or hotlines to assist the victims or in counseling services to offer support for potential offenders.

Maybe I didn't comprehend it correctly, but I thought J used to "laugh" at people who got their news from FBG forums instead of "real sources". This thread and GM's post is exactly the reason why there's excellent information on a variety of topics here.

 

[Desert_Power]

This thread and GM's post is exactly the reason why there's excellent information on a variety of topics here.

Really great discussion here. I agree.

 

[JAA]

Understood. Agree to disagree

May I ask what you think the "problem" that needs to be solved with respect to gambling? Since we seem to disagree on this fundamental principle I think it would be helpful if that were to be defined. I think that goes to the crux of the disagreement here.

The problem IMO is that gambling is a Nice To Have, dopamine habit forming activity, which has the propensity to destroy people's lives. I include Alcohol, Sugar, porn , and tobacco in this group.

So any dopamine habit forming activity needs to be banned? So you treat dopamine inducing activities as inherently bad for your health because of it's addictive qualities?

ETA: I am just trying to understand the concept/reasoning here.

Who said anything about banning? Please do not put words in my mouth. Please instead reread my initial proposal and every one since in this thread. TY

 

[Gally]

Understood. Agree to disagree

May I ask what you think the "problem" that needs to be solved with respect to gambling? Since we seem to disagree on this fundamental principle I think it would be helpful if that were to be defined. I think that goes to the crux of the disagreement here.

The problem IMO is that gambling is a Nice To Have, dopamine habit forming activity, which has the propensity to destroy people's lives. I include Alcohol, Sugar, porn , and tobacco in this group.

So any dopamine habit forming activity needs to be banned? So you treat dopamine inducing activities as inherently bad for your health because of it's addictive qualities?

ETA: I am just trying to understand the concept/reasoning here.

Who said anything about banning? Please do not put words in my mouth. Please instead reread my initial proposal and every one since in this thread. TY

In the smoking example you said it did a good job of stopping people from starting smoking. True? So wouldn't that lead to the idea that you want don't want people to start with any of these activities and that would be the solution to the problem you are trying to solve? So while you may not want to "ban" any of these items your preferred outcome would be for nobody to start/participate in these activities. Am I misunderstanding your desired outcome when it comes to these things?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Maybe I didn't comprehend it correctly, but I thought J used to "laugh" at people who got their news from FBG forums instead of "real sources". This thread and GM's post is exactly the reason why there's excellent information on a variety of topics here.

You for sure didn't comprehend correctly my feeling on this. If I ever gave the impression I laughed at anyone here, that's a horrible error on my part and I apologize. I'd hope as long as you've been here that you'd know that's not what I'm about.

I do think and I've said it many times, I believe the forums are a terrible place to use as a primary news source because they're so limited and fractured. If the political forum was where someone got most of their news, I think that's not good. On the flip side, the base of knowledge and expertise here is fantastic. Which makes them a fantastic place to discuss things. I would have hoped that could have gone without saying.

This thread has been an excellent example of great discussion.,

 

[JAA]

Understood. Agree to disagree

May I ask what you think the "problem" that needs to be solved with respect to gambling? Since we seem to disagree on this fundamental principle I think it would be helpful if that were to be defined. I think that goes to the crux of the disagreement here.

The problem IMO is that gambling is a Nice To Have, dopamine habit forming activity, which has the propensity to destroy people's lives. I include Alcohol, Sugar, porn , and tobacco in this group.

So any dopamine habit forming activity needs to be banned? So you treat dopamine inducing activities as inherently bad for your health because of it's addictive qualities?

ETA: I am just trying to understand the concept/reasoning here.

Who said anything about banning? Please do not put words in my mouth. Please instead reread my initial proposal and every one since in this thread. TY

In the smoking example you said it did a good job of stopping people from starting smoking. True? So wouldn't that lead to the idea that you want don't want people to start with any of these activities and that would be the solution to the problem you are trying to solve? So while you may not want to "ban" any of these items your preferred outcome would be for nobody to start/participate in these activities. Am I misunderstanding your desired outcome when it comes to these things?

If you are asking me what outcome I want ...

I want all to have free will. I want all to go a be happy with whatever floats their boat, right up until their "habbits" impact other people and systems (think medical/financial).

All that to say that if there are NICE TO HAVE's which have the propensity to be habit forming with the potential to hurt others, make the barrier to entry and maintaining not simple/free.

 

[Spartans Rule]

I agree with your larger point but there is a bridge between the classic fantasy football league you describe and the phenom of DFS, which seems anecdotally to be the hottest moving area of what is really pure sports gambling. DFS involves same day bets, live bets, etc. with immediate results. DraftKings and Fanduel started out offering essentially routine fantasy baseball and football league competitions and are now full-blown online casinos and have grown to become massive, dominant players in the online gambling space overnight. I've been sitting at home with my teenage son - he's scrolling his phone checking basketball scores and he'll make a comment about whether some player will have X rebounds or points in the second half of a game neither of us cares about. It makes me a bit uneasy because teenagers are so easily influenced on things like this and it is very easy for them to make casual bets on what seems to me to be very much adjacent to fantasy sports.

Yeah, the DFS sites have really blurred the lines between fantasy sports and pure gambling.

I've noticed this a lot in the fantasy baseball world. I do one dynasty league and one redraft each year. There's people doing 100+ draft and hold leagues in the offseason, then playing DFS all season and measuring their success in profit margins. These are wildly different things even if both are technically under the umbrella of fantasy sports.

DFS has no appeal to me now, but if it had been readily available in my teenage years I could see myself getting sucked in pretty easily.

 

[titusbramble]

DFS is already dead as a profitable gambling stream for the casual

 

[FairWarning]

DFS is already dead as a profitable gambling stream for the casual

It’s been dead for a while. The best way to win is to play single-entry contests. The pros are so well-funded, you have little chance with your lineup vs a player with 150 in a millionaire contest.

 

[titusbramble]

DFS is already dead as a profitable gambling stream for the casual

It’s been dead for a while. The best way to win is to play single-entry contests. The pros are so well-funded, you have little chance with your lineup vs a player with 150 in a millionaire contest.

Yep. That's what happens when people move over from poker, which roughly the same group of people pretty much killed by analysing the game to death and all playing in the same, boring manner

 

[FairWarning]

DFS is already dead as a profitable gambling stream for the casual

It’s been dead for a while. The best way to win is to play single-entry contests. The pros are so well-funded, you have little chance with your lineup vs a player with 150 in a millionaire contest.

Yep. That's what happens when people move over from poker, which roughly the same group of people pretty much killed by analysing the game to death and all playing in the same, boring manner

I’ll play a few single entry contests from time to time, and a private setup with league mates. Anything else is fools gold,

 

[Leroy Hoard]

The only thing I will add to the whole "what is gambling" question is why would anyone pay for fantasy football information if they were not in leagues that have payouts? Do people really pay for info to win in no money leagues?

 

[BassNBrew]

Maybe I didn't comprehend it correctly, but I thought J used to "laugh" at people who got their news from FBG forums instead of "real sources". This thread and GM's post is exactly the reason why there's excellent information on a variety of topics here.

You for sure didn't comprehend correctly my feeling on this. If I ever gave the impression I laughed at anyone here, that's a horrible error on my part and I apologize. I'd hope as long as you've been here that you'd know that's not what I'm about.

I do think and I've said it many times, I believe the forums are a terrible place to use as a primary news source because they're so limited and fractured. If the political forum was where someone got most of their news, I think that's not good. On the flip side, the base of knowledge and expertise here is fantastic. Which makes them a fantastic place to discuss things. I would have hoped that could have gone without saying.

This thread has been an excellent example of great discussion.,

Thumbs up on the first.

Disagree on the second. Most topics get covered from every angle.

NYT - All the news that's fit to print.

FBG - All the news I need to care about

 

[Joe Bryant]

Maybe I didn't comprehend it correctly, but I thought J used to "laugh" at people who got their news from FBG forums instead of "real sources". This thread and GM's post is exactly the reason why there's excellent information on a variety of topics here.

You for sure didn't comprehend correctly my feeling on this. If I ever gave the impression I laughed at anyone here, that's a horrible error on my part and I apologize. I'd hope as long as you've been here that you'd know that's not what I'm about.

I do think and I've said it many times, I believe the forums are a terrible place to use as a primary news source because they're so limited and fractured. If the political forum was where someone got most of their news, I think that's not good. On the flip side, the base of knowledge and expertise here is fantastic. Which makes them a fantastic place to discuss things. I would have hoped that could have gone without saying.

This thread has been an excellent example of great discussion.,

Thumbs up on the first.

Disagree on the second. Most topics get covered from every angle.

NYT - All the news that's fit to print.

FBG - All the news I need to care about

Thanks GB. We can disagree on the 2nd there. All good.

 

[Mister CIA]

I do think and I've said it many times, I believe the forums are a terrible place to use as a primary news source

Au contraire, the beauty of sourcing my news here is that it is fronted by the world's best bull#### detector - something Twitter, Reddit, and (sadly) news outlets, don't have. I know a thousand people on these boards, I have known them for nearly 20 years, and I have varying degrees of respect for most. ...I'm veering off topic.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

The only thing I will add to the whole "what is gambling" question is why would anyone pay for fantasy football information if they were not in leagues that have payouts? Do people really pay for info to win in no money leagues?

I used to back when I played FF. It was never about money in the casual leagues I played. I paid for FBG content to be competitive in my casual leagues without having to put in the time.

 

[Joe Bryant]

The only thing I will add to the whole "what is gambling" question is why would anyone pay for fantasy football information if they were not in leagues that have payouts? Do people really pay for info to win in no money leagues?

I used to back when I played FF. It was never about money in the casual leagues I played. I paid for FBG content to be competitive in my casual leagues without having to put in the time.

100%. We have lots of Premium Subscribers who are in free leagues. Most people don't see a FBG subscription as a return on investment thing. They buy it as it adds to their enjoyment of their hobby.

For lots of people, we're like a subscription to a Golf Magazine or website if you're really into golf. Or fishing or skiing or running or whatever you're into.

In a time where pizzas and beers for the game can be $50, it's a cheap addition to the year of Fantasy Fooball that lots of people see as a positive in helping them have more fun. And of course, it's more fun when you win, but it's mostly about having more fun.

 

[FairWarning]

The only thing I will add to the whole "what is gambling" question is why would anyone pay for fantasy football information if they were not in leagues that have payouts? Do people really pay for info to win in no money leagues?

I pay for info to help in betting props also.

 

[-fish-]

Why are we singling our sports betting when the world is festooned with gambling choices? Powerball, Megamillions, Lotto, Keno, Video Poker, Casinos have been around and legal here and elsewhere for decades now. What makes this one the proverbial straw?

Going to read the article now to seek an answer to my question. I will say, as a loyal and devoted reader of Peter King's, he warned about legalized sports betting in several of his columns. a So I do know others have warned against it publicly, just unclear why people can cash their paychecks at a riverboat casino in Vicksburg since the 90s and I don't remember articles warning of the dangers there.....curious.

My attempt at a serious answer is that it's because in this case (a) it's in your pocket wherever you go, and (b) you can't watch sports without having it shoved down your throat.

Keep in mind that I have no personal issue with sports gambling. I just see why it's potentially a bigger deal that lottery scratch-offs.

Good points but as a counter, horse racing has been available to consumers on their phones for many years prior to widespread sports gambling access and that never really seemed to bother anybody.

But I also acknowledge that's a niche sport and most enthusiasts are older than us and we're old.

ahem.

 

[General Malaise]

Why are we singling our sports betting when the world is festooned with gambling choices? Powerball, Megamillions, Lotto, Keno, Video Poker, Casinos have been around and legal here and elsewhere for decades now. What makes this one the proverbial straw?

Going to read the article now to seek an answer to my question. I will say, as a loyal and devoted reader of Peter King's, he warned about legalized sports betting in several of his columns. a So I do know others have warned against it publicly, just unclear why people can cash their paychecks at a riverboat casino in Vicksburg since the 90s and I don't remember articles warning of the dangers there.....curious.

My attempt at a serious answer is that it's because in this case (a) it's in your pocket wherever you go, and (b) you can't watch sports without having it shoved down your throat.

Keep in mind that I have no personal issue with sports gambling. I just see why it's potentially a bigger deal that lottery scratch-offs.

Good points but as a counter, horse racing has been available to consumers on their phones for many years prior to widespread sports gambling access and that never really seemed to bother anybody.

But I also acknowledge that's a niche sport and most enthusiasts are older than us and we're old.

ahem.

You just proved my point, Methusela.

 

[General Malaise]

The only thing I will add to the whole "what is gambling" question is why would anyone pay for fantasy football information if they were not in leagues that have payouts? Do people really pay for info to win in no money leagues?

I used to back when I played FF. It was never about money in the casual leagues I played. I paid for FBG content to be competitive in my casual leagues without having to put in the time.

100%. We have lots of Premium Subscribers who are in free leagues. Most people don't see a FBG subscription as a return on investment thing. They buy it as it adds to their enjoyment of their hobby.

For lots of people, we're like a subscription to a Golf Magazine or website if you're really into golf. Or fishing or skiing or running or whatever you're into.

In a time where pizzas and beers for the game can be $50, it's a cheap addition to the year of Fantasy Fooball that lots of people see as a positive in helping them have more fun. And of course, it's more fun when you win, but it's mostly about having more fun.

I accidentally somehow paid for and started receiving a quarterly magazine called Birds and Blooms for bird enthusiasts and gardeners. I'm neither. But I haven't canceled it yet because I really like the pictures and interesting factoids.

 

[-fish-]

The only thing I will add to the whole "what is gambling" question is why would anyone pay for fantasy football information if they were not in leagues that have payouts? Do people really pay for info to win in no money leagues?

I used to back when I played FF. It was never about money in the casual leagues I played. I paid for FBG content to be competitive in my casual leagues without having to put in the time.

100%. We have lots of Premium Subscribers who are in free leagues. Most people don't see a FBG subscription as a return on investment thing. They buy it as it adds to their enjoyment of their hobby.

For lots of people, we're like a subscription to a Golf Magazine or website if you're really into golf. Or fishing or skiing or running or whatever you're into.

In a time where pizzas and beers for the game can be $50, it's a cheap addition to the year of Fantasy Fooball that lots of people see as a positive in helping them have more fun. And of course, it's more fun when you win, but it's mostly about having more fun.

I accidentally somehow paid for and started receiving a quarterly magazine called Birds and Blooms for bird enthusiasts and gardeners. I'm neither. But I haven't canceled it yet because I really like the pictures and interesting factoids.

"accidentally"

 

[fruity pebbles]

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but my kids were watching Disney Channel just now. I have it set for 14 and under. An ad just came on for Prize Picks a sports gambling site. You have to be kidding me. I’m not a prude but that seems ridiculous and I was kicking around canceling anyways as there’s seldom anything new……this sealed it.

 

[Todem]

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but my kids were watching Disney Channel just now. I have it set for 14 and under. An ad just came on for Prize Picks a sports gambling site. You have to be kidding me. I’m not a prude but that seems ridiculous and I was kicking around canceling anyways as there’s seldom anything new……this sealed it.

That’s pretty incredible man.

 

[Dan Lambskin]

HorseWhy are we singling our sports betting when the world is festooned with gambling choices? Powerball, Megamillions, Lotto, Keno, Video Poker, Casinos have been around and legal here and elsewhere for decades now. What makes this one the proverbial straw?

Going to read the article now to seek an answer to my question. I will say, as a loyal and devoted reader of Peter King's, he warned about legalized sports betting in several of his columns. a So I do know others have warned against it publicly, just unclear why people can cash their paychecks at a riverboat casino in Vicksburg since the 90s and I don't remember articles warning of the dangers there.....curious.

My attempt at a serious answer is that it's because in this case (a) it's in your pocket wherever you go, and (b) you can't watch sports without having it shoved down your throat.

Keep in mind that I have no personal issue with sports gambling. I just see why it's potentially a bigger deal that lottery scratch-offs.

Good points but as a counter, horse racing has been available to consumers on their phones for many years prior to widespread sports gambling access and that never really seemed to bother anybody.

But I also acknowledge that's a niche sport and most enthusiasts are older than us and we're old.

ahem.

You just proved my point, Methusela.

 

[Dan Lambskin]

Gun and Garden is an interesting one. Seems like something @Ron Swanson would subscribed to