Thorpe
Footballguy
$600 is the figure if you win a bet that pays better than 300-1. It isn't a 1099, it is a W2 though.
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!
Supreme Court Rules Sports Betting Legal (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Smack Tripper
- Start date
roadkill1292
Footballguy
I don't think those two ideas are really related. Az Ron's post raises some really interesting questions about the future of FF in the face of widespread availability of sports betting and DFS but gamblers really don't care if their favorite teams are bad. Nobody from Ohio is gonna go to the book and only bet the Browns.Pipes said:
Tom Servo
Nittany Beavers
There are other ramifications to this bill being declared unconstitutional.Doug B said:
[snip]
Basically, we're talking about the correct application of the 10th amendment as it pertains to granting to states powers not expressly given to the federal government.
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
And can still ban it?Maurile Tremblay said:
comfortably numb
Footballguy
Ok. Thats where i was getting confused.
I was looking at this like withdrawaling from an account and if that amount was X you would have to deal with taxes.
Each wager looks like it is its own possibility of being taxed upon winning if it passes the 299.1 threshold.
FTR i get if you make $33 on gambling it is reportable income. I was just looking at how the IRS would be involved in this situation.
Pipes
Footballguy
Of course they are related. Fantasy football keeps fans of crappy teams interested in the NFL. A good chunk of fantasy football players are casual fans because Yahoo, ESPN or whatever tells them who to start...they aren't gamblers per se. That chunk of the fantasy football base isn't going to be betting on NFL games that isn't their home team and even then I'm not sure they will other than a small bet here and there. Fantasy football may take a bit of a hit from the hardcore players but gamblers are gamblers so this will just be another avenue for them. Many of the hardcore fantasy owners I know already have online sportbooks accounts anyway. I just don't see this having a major impact whatsoever.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
If we're talking about the same things, and I'm not sure of that, then I'm not following. I'll grant that my perspective may be skewed by a belief that FF either has or will be entering a long slow decline in interest. And it's really possible that that belief is completely inaccurate.
Pipes
Footballguy
AR mentioned that fantasy will take a big hit from this and I don't agree. I don't doubt fantasy is in a slight decline from it's peak but it's still going strong. My whole point was the causal fantasy player likely isn't going to be betting on individual games because likely they aren't smart enough. Websites like Yahoo and ESPN make casual fantasy leagues idiot proof now a days. In my opinion casual fantasy players may place a bet here or there but if their team stinks they don't know enough about the other teams to make smart bets. Again this is the real casual fan.
Then one the other end of the spectrum you have the hardcore fantasy players that just love football and love to gamble. A huge chunk of this group already has online sportsbook accounts so they will probably drop that and continue fantasy and betting on individual games. For these guys gambling is gambling and if their state starts allowing gambling all this means is those guys don't have to run down to the local bar on Tues and grab a parlay card.
Plus you also have to consider how quickly this is going to happen. This isn't even on the radar in half the states yet and with how the govt works it will be years before it's up and running even in the states that are discussing it with a few exceptions like NJ.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Tom Servo's link didn't work but I assume the discussion was about the anti-commandeering doctrine more broadly. I'd be wary of reading too much into this case. As Maurile pointed out, this case was more about form than substance. Congress could still ban sports betting tomorrow if it wished. The problem here was that instead of doing that, they forbid the states from doing it, which is an iffy tactic. But generally speaking the anti-commandeering doctrine has been narrowly applied. The fact that it was not only applied here but that it was a 7-2 decision says more about the sloppiness of the legislation it invalidated than it does about the doctrine going forward.
If you're a boring con law nerd and want to read about the doctrine (
) rather than sports gambling ( 
), here are columns for and against its application.
mquinnjr
Footballguy
I signed up for a players card on their website. They're doing the standard match on any status that you have with other properties for Hard Rock status, room comps and discounts.
OMG OMG OMG
Billy Bats
Footballguy
Screw AC, hopefully they add a book at Harrahs Chester or Philly Live by the stadiums.
I absolutely love that it's a reality now that I can send a group text to friends on a Thursday to drive to AC in 75 mins from the Philly area and bet football all weekend in a legitimate sportsbook.
Rules so hard.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
mquinnjr
Footballguy
Oh absolutely, but I see PA lagging NJ a little bit legally. I'd guess AC will have a better chance to be open for business by the time CFB/Week 1 rolls around. It's still AC, but I want to experience a football weekend with line shopping that would be an AC version of Vegas, just grimier and 75 mins away. I'm shooting for Week 2 NFL/Week 3 CFB for a weekend trip to AC.Screw AC, hopefully they add a book at Harrahs Chester or Philly Live by the stadiums.
Last edited by a moderator:
belljr
Footballguy
Meh - if I can't bet online book for the casino then I'm hitting CAESARS since its first in.
ETA: Doh mis read. My status is nill . I visit maybe once or twice per year. But with the book it will be once a week assuming it has to be in person
Last edited by a moderator:
mquinnjr
Footballguy
I live in PA, and I'm going to assume you'll need to be a state resident to bet on an app at home. AC will likely be a tourist destination for me on a football weekend doing it old school with cash or settling an app account that same weekend like Vegas. For at home, hoping PA gets things rolling in time for kickoff.Meh - if I can't bet online book for the casino then I'm hitting CAESARS since its first in.
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
And at poconoScrew AC, hopefully they add a book at Harrahs Chester or Philly Live by the stadiums.
Uruk-Hai
Footballguy
I think the difference now will be that a bunch of insanely rich, old ears have perked up with Silver's "1% maintenance fee" (or whatever the hell he called it). The behemoths are beginning to stir at the smell of tonnage.Tom Servo's link didn't work but I assume the discussion was about the anti-commandeering doctrine more broadly. I'd be wary of reading too much into this case. As Maurile pointed out, this case was more about form than substance. Congress could still ban sports betting tomorrow if it wished. The problem here was that instead of doing that, they forbid the states from doing it, which is an iffy tactic. But generally speaking the anti-commandeering doctrine has been narrowly applied. The fact that it was not only applied here but that it was a 7-2 decision says more about the sloppiness of the legislation it invalidated than it does about the doctrine going forward.
If you're a boring con law nerd and want to read about the doctrine (
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Oh, I doubt they'll actually ban it even though they have the power to do so. Makes no sense for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that there's money to be made and the donor class knows it, as you say. But they could- this case didn't make sports betting legal, it just opened the door for states to do it in the absence of an explicit federal prohibition on sports betting itself.
Uruk-Hai
Footballguy
Thanks to you, Maurile, and the rest who posted here clarifying. Because there were a TON of headlines out there yesterday saying sports betting is legal.
I'm no expert and also haven't really thought this through, but I think - in this case - I might want to see the feds set regulations and let the states choose whether to participate under their guidelines. But I'm not sure if that's the right way to go yet.
Yes. Isn't that the ace the game operators will use?
Although isn't it about where you are at the actual time when you're manipulating the lineup? In other words, the poker guy may live in a state where it's not allowed. But that's not the issue is it? Can't he claim he was in Canada when he played the game? How does the casino prove he wasn't in Canada and was really using a VPN? Or does he have to prove he was in Canada? Seems onerous.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
I like the word "onerous."
Good Posting Judge
Footballguy
From what I can tell, it's pretty easy to tell which IP's are from a VPN, and which are not. I've had betting accts temporarily suspended in the past for making bets (in good faith) from a VPN, and I had to call in to square things up.Joe Bryant said:
I have the Westgate app (which I have used to check lines, never make actual bets) on my phone. Before you can do anything, you have to turn your location on. If you're not within NV state lines, per your GPS coordinates, you can't make bets. The technology they use is from a company called Locaid.
ETA: This is just from message board posts, so it might be apocyphal, but attempts to spoof one's location, which is otherwise possible, cannot beat Locaid.
Last edited by a moderator:
Good Posting Judge
Footballguy
Also, yesterday's episode of the Behind the Bets podcast is a really superb breakdown of what this decision means, what the future looks like, etc.
Smack Tripper
Footballguy
they should tell that fool to pound saltUruk-Hai said:
roadkill1292
Footballguy
So how exactly will the leagues monetize gambling? I'm not sure I get this 1% fee deal, how can something like that be enforced? Fellow soccerdorks, anything like that in the Prem?
mquinnjr
Footballguy
N.J. can forget immediate legal sports betting. Here's why.
Enter (insert name of person/group with hands extended) to juice legal NJ sports betting into oblivion. Per the NJ.com article, no one will be granted a license to take sports bets until this regulation process is complete, and is perma-banned from getting a license if sports bets are taken before the regulation process completes.
Enter (insert name of person/group with hands extended) to juice legal NJ sports betting into oblivion. Per the NJ.com article, no one will be granted a license to take sports bets until this regulation process is complete, and is perma-banned from getting a license if sports bets are taken before the regulation process completes.
I can see in the future that as I'm following my gamecast on nfl.com, I'll be able to place live wagering right from there. Live wagering, props inside the stadiums, etc.
Rodrigo Duterte
Footballguy
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Or from your phone or tablet as you're watching the game on tv. One of my buddies predicts betting on the next play in football or next pitch in baseball. Another one of my IRL friends says that this is also where the danger come into play and I understand that. Compulsive gamblers won't ever be able to stop if it's at their fingertips and just seconds away from getting a result.
facook
Footballguy
I want them to become my new online sportsbook. Or South Point. Or Cantor. Or all of them. But I'm sure it'll take years before we're able to bet with them from outside Nevada, right? And never if our state never "legalizes" sports betting?
Oregon had Sports Action parlays cards run by the state lottery from 89-07. That was really my baptism into sports betting. Just read an article that the lottery had been looking at bringing it back in some form by 2020. Hopefully this speeds up the process.
Last edited by a moderator:
facook
Footballguy
This is already available in live betting some places online. And yes, it's very very fun and can be lucrative if you know teams tendencies (Redskins have 1st a goal at the 2? They're going to throw an incomplete fade. Next play incomplete pass +400) but can also be very very dangerous.
That's the question I've had @roadkill1292 I know Silver and the NBA guys are super smart so I'm assuming they have a plan.
But it's my understanding the Soccer teams don't get a cut now in Europe. Is that correct?
I'm not sure how they would here.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
In England almost every first and second tier stadium has prominent sportsbook advertising. Maybe more but we don't get to see third and fourth division teams very often. And books are the primary sponsors of more than a couple of clubs, earning them valuable exposure on the team jersies (here's West Ham this past season).
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Somebody at The Ringer said this, too, and calculated that it amounted to about a 20% tax since the book's winnings work out somewhere around 5% of the handle. They'll never get that when you can just watch the games on tv.
Howya been?
Good Posting Judge
Footballguy
I'll believe the 1% thing when I see it. And I'm not sure what sort of standing they have to ask for a fee like this.
Legalized betting will certainly increase a team's revenue indirectly: higher ratings, more engagement, sponsorship opportunites, etc., but I don't know how they're going to be able to get a direct slice of the pie.
Uruk-Hai
Footballguy
Been good, my friend. Living the dream in the Valley, still. Hope you're doing well, too.
Maybe The Ringer is where I saw it. In any case, though, it shows you where the mindset of the major sports organizations is.
In whatever shape this thing evolves to, it's going to involve massive amounts of money shared by a relative few.
Uruk-Hai
Footballguy
I don't either, but these (owners/leagues) are some very powerful people. They can make or break political careers.
Moe.
Footballguy
Cuban said he thinks the ruling doubles the value of the franchises themselves. Whether or not that's true probably depends on whether or not there is uniform adoption across the country, but they should be happy with that and move on. To ask for even .25% is stupid. Figure out other ways to profit off of it instead of screwing up the whole thing.
Good Posting Judge
Footballguy
That's nuts. So if gambling in the UK got pushed into semi-illegality, the way it has been in the US, would it cut the value of EPL franchises in half?
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Like. Isn't the asking price for the Panthers north of $2 billion? I don't know if the league becomes twice as popular with legal betting but whatever percentage it is added to the already insane appreciation rates is pretty good dough (and which mostly benefits the most ONEROUS - thanks, JB - group of people in the world).
QuizGuy66
Footballguy
part of this is procedural though. New Jersey's strategy with the lawsuit was basically that there was to have no law and therefore they were in compliance with the federal law - essentially that the federal law prevented them from having regulated gambling (implicitly meaning unregulated sports gambling must be okay). With the federal law struck down, however, it now doesn't make sense to have no law. By saying anybody that does sports betting before regulation is ban they are just making sure they have their ducks in a row.
Yes there will be likely be a little horse trading
but given the stakes and dollars involved I think NJ will act fast. I also think they'll keep the vig on the more reasonable side (at least compared to what states like Pennsylvania seem to be bent on doing). The fun part is if they try to essentially cut the leagues out altogether. But I think that will be a situation where the sports book open up and that will be ending up in the courts. I'm not a lawyer but I think that the leagues having never asserted rights to any portion of sports betting from Vega$ books will be the angle NJ takes to try and keep the leagues from grabbing a cut. Will that wash - time will tell.-QG
Moe.
Footballguy
I think double is an exaggeration, and I don't think he meant for it to be applied across the board, but who knows. The article is below.
To your question they'd definitely be less valuable, but 50% is a stretch. Lotta sponsorship dollars would disappear overnight.
http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/23511326/dallas-mavericks-owner-mark-cuban-says-sports-betting-ruling-doubled-franchise-values-overnight
Last edited by a moderator:
Good Posting Judge
Footballguy
Well, the Pamfers are selling for 2.2b, that's not too far off from what's expected, right?
Thanks. But as far as the sports books offering games paying any of the teams a cut, that doesn't happen does it?
And can maybe some of you Las Vegas experts refresh my memory - was this kind of thing where the teams have their hands out asking for a cut of the action ever a thing in Las Vegas?
I've always thought of the sports book sort of like the newspapers. They cover the games. But don't have to pay the teams anything to cover them.
Do we think that'll change here?
I go back to looking at the people when I don't really know the details. I don't know the details for what the NBA wants to do but I know Adam Silver is super smart. I'm assuming he has some sort of plan. Do we know much about what it is?
I've always thought of the sports book sort of like the newspapers. They cover the games. But don't have to pay the teams anything to cover them.
Do we think that'll change here?
I go back to looking at the people when I don't really know the details. I don't know the details for what the NBA wants to do but I know Adam Silver is super smart. I'm assuming he has some sort of plan. Do we know much about what it is?
