Big California Vote Coming

The talk is that on Monday KGO Radio in San Francisco will start programming a sports betting format. To do this the radio station canceled a format of news and talk programming.

Radio stations change programming formats all the time.

I worked for a few years at KFWB doing the morning business news when it was an all news radio station but previously it was a music station and I think now it offers non English programming. (Someone update me.)

But back to KGO. Sports betting programming?

Yes sports betting is huge in Nevada and in many states but as I write this SPORTS BETTING IS ILLEGAL IN CALIFORNIA. Even Super Bowl squares are illegal.

Anyone see the irony here?

Sure, KGO could advertise Vegas casinos and Reno casinos.

Sports betting information on the radio is nothing new, of course. For almost a hundred years radio has been broadcasting results from horse race tracks, down the penny on win, place and show. It has been accepted.

But will the public accept hearing about the odds on the Chargers and Rams and how injuries might impact an NBA parlay?

But wait. The sports betting situation in California might change on election day.

There are two Propositions or Constitutional Amendments on this November's ballot that would LEGALIZE sports betting in California. They are props 26 and 27.

If either one passes sports betting would be legal in the state. The difference with the props is where you'd place your bets. Prop 26 also allows Indian casinos to offer real craps and real roulette.

Right now the betting odds (that's ironic) are that both Propositions are likely to lose -- just as a proposition to expand casino gambling in California lost many years ago.

Are the owners of KGO betting that sports betting will be approved in November?

Or do they figure there is enough ad revenue potential from Nevada casinos to make the programming switch worthwhile?

The reality is there are plenty of sources for news and talk these days on TV, other radio stations, print and THE INTERNET.

Losing one radio station is not an assault on free speech.

But for the owners of KGO this is a huge gamble.

Quote: AlanMendelson

The talk is that on Monday KGO Radio in San Francisco will start programming a sports betting format. To do this the radio station canceled a format of news and talk programming.

Radio stations change programming formats all the time.

I worked for a few years at KFWB doing the morning business news when it was an all news radio station but previously it was a music station and I think now it offers non English programming. (Someone update me.)

But back to KGO. Sports betting programming?

Yes sports betting is huge in Nevada and in many states but as I write this SPORTS BETTING IS ILLEGAL IN CALIFORNIA. Even Super Bowl squares are illegal.

So are March Madness pools. I believe the saying is, "More honored in the breach than the observance."

Also note that KGO changed owners not too long ago. I think it started going downhill when Jim Eason left for KSFO, but that's another story.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Anyone see the irony here?

Sure, KGO could advertise Vegas casinos and Reno casinos.

Sports betting information on the radio is nothing new, of course. For almost a hundred years radio has been broadcasting results from horse race tracks, down the penny on win, place and show. It has been accepted.

But will the public accept hearing about the odds on the Chargers and Rams and how injuries might impact an NBA parlay?

You make it sound like KGO would be the first station in the country to do this sort of thing.

Quote: AlanMendelson

But wait. The sports betting situation in California might change on election day.

There are two Propositions or Constitutional Amendments on this November's ballot that would LEGALIZE sports betting in California. They are props 26 and 27.

If either one passes sports betting would be legal in the state. The difference with the props is where you'd place your bets. Prop 26 also allows Indian casinos to offer real craps and real roulette.

Right now the betting odds (that's ironic) are that both Propositions are likely to lose -- just as a proposition to expand casino gambling in California lost many years ago.

Are the owners of KGO betting that sports betting will be approved in November?

Or do they figure there is enough ad revenue potential from Nevada casinos to make the programming switch worthwhile?

The reality is there are plenty of sources for news and talk these days on TV, other radio stations, print and THE INTERNET.

Losing one radio station is not an assault on free speech.

But for the owners of KGO this is a huge gamble.
link to original post

I don't think the two propositions - especially 27, which is the one that would allow online betting - have that much to do with the format change. Even if either of them did pass, it would be a while before anybody could get sports betting operations up and running.

Keep in mind that it's not that hard to access offshore betting sites, if you have a decent VPN, just as long as you don't use a credit card.

BetUS regularly advertises on ESPN radio in California. They are based in Costa Rica. You could have offshore books advertise, but the issue is that a lot of people are uncomfortable with them.

Both 26 and 27 the sports betting propositions in California are expected to lose in the November election.

26 is the one that would also legalize dice and roulette.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Both 26 and 27 the sports betting propositions in California are expected to lose in the November election.

26 is the one that would also legalize dice and roulette.
link to original post

26 would also increase the penalties for operating "illegal" games to a $10,000 fine and a possible 24-hour closure for the first offense, 48 hours for the second, and 30 days for each subsequent offense - and anybody can file a complaint. It is thought that this is being targeted at card rooms that use "third-party bankers" for games like "California blackjack", where whichever player is the dealer covers all of the players' bets.

Both props have bells and whistles as added sweeteners, but it all boils down to who controls sports betting in California -- one helluva prize. Prop 26 favors tribal casinos and, to a lesser extent, horse tracks. Prop 27 favors online betting companies.

Right now it looks like they'll both lose. But what happens if they both win? Endless court battles?

Quote: Gialmere

Both props have bells and whistles as added sweeteners, but it all boils down to who controls sports betting in California -- one helluva prize. Prop 26 favors tribal casinos and, to a lesser extent, horse tracks. Prop 27 favors online betting companies.

Right now it looks like they'll both lose. But what happens if they both win? Endless court battles?
link to original post

Probably, but I think 27 was specifically written so that nothing in 26 would change the same parts of the state Constitution, so they both can take effect.

Article II, Section 10(b) of California's state Constitution reads, "If provisions of two or more measures approved at the same election conflict, the provisions of the measure receiving the highest number of affirmative votes shall prevail." I have a feeling that, if 26 passes with more "yes" votes than 27, the court argument would go like this:
(pro-26 side) "The intent of 26 was not to have online gambling, and 27 conflicts with that."
(pro-27 side) "27 adds an entirely separate section to the Constitution. Nothing in it conflicts with 26. If use of the term 'notwithstanding' is a conflict, then all of the casinos have to close because the only thing that authorizes them is the use of 'notwithstanding' in Article IV, Section 19(f) to get around the ban on casinos still in Article IV, Section 19(e) put in when the lottery was authorized."

Currently, the state Constitution says, in Article IV, Section 19:

"(e) The Legislature has no power to authorize, and shall prohibit, casinos of the type currently operating in Nevada and New Jersey.

(f) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (e), and any other provision of state law, the Governor is authorized to negotiate and conclude compacts, subject to ratification by the Legislature, for the operation of slot machines and for the conduct of lottery games and banking and percentage card games by federally recognized Indian tribes on Indian lands in California in accordance with federal law. Accordingly, slot machines, lottery games, and banking and percentage card games are hereby permitted to be conducted and operated on tribal lands subject to those compacts."

19(e) is still there to prevent non-tribal casinos. 19(f) is there to allow for the tribal casinos, as well as restrict what games they can run. Note that a video poker machine is considered a "slot machine," and versions of roulette and craps that use cards are considered "card games."

Well, they both lost. Sportbooks in Reno and Vegas cheer.

Quote: Gialmere

Well, they both lost. Sportbooks in Reno and Vegas cheer.
link to original post

I think the bookies in California are even happier.

Huge win for Nevada books, but why would anyone object to legalizing sport’s betting when it would generate new tax dollars? Help reduce the homeless, etc? It’s found money. Instead Californians will come over to Nevada and bet while Nevadans will help support Californians by playing the lotteries

Heh heh. I haven't seen a voter breakdown but, in my mind's eye, I envision beleaguered housewives worried that their beer-swilling husbands would start betting the rent money.

Quote: Gialmere

Heh heh. I haven't seen a voter breakdown but, in my mind's eye, I envision beleaguered housewives worried that their beer-swilling husbands would start betting the rent money.
link to original post

I don't see how any beer-swilling husband worth his salt doesn't already have a VPN to bet at a Nevada site.

I think the Prop 27 supporters saw the writing on the wall when they stopped advertising during NFL games. Most Proposition 27 ads touted the benefits; the ones during NFL coverage came right out and said, "Hey! Sports betting from the comfort of your own home!"

Note that, as California law currently stands, the next opportunity will be at the November 2024 election.

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Quote: Gialmere

Heh heh. I haven't seen a voter breakdown but, in my mind's eye, I envision beleaguered housewives worried that their beer-swilling husbands would start betting the rent money.
link to original post

I don't see how any beer-swilling husband worth his salt doesn't already have a VPN to bet at a Nevada site.

Does a simple VPN work? I have never tried betting in NV from outside NV.

Has anybody come up with a noncomplex way to get around/trick the geolocation in other states for stat regulated online casinos?
I'm certainly interested in hearing theories on how that can be done.

Also, I wonder about the legality if one were able to do it.

I understand it's illegal for them to accept wagers from outside the state not sure if that would also apply to the person making the bets or if that is already covered under the wire act.

There are a few VPNs I know which give New Jersey addresses but most of the gambling sites ban VPNs. If you have a friend or relative in another state you can drop a used computer on and have a terminal you can remote into, that would work, but it's more trouble than it is worth.

Quote: calwatch

There are a few VPNs I know which give New Jersey addresses but most of the gambling sites ban VPNs. If you have a friend or relative in another state you can drop a used computer on and have a terminal you can remote into, that would work, but it's more trouble than it is worth.
link to original post

I would also assume that this will work for exactly one player account per friend or relative in another state.
There are more elegant solutions, like running an OpenVPN relay on a "router", but this will likely face the same fundamental limitation.

If the play is valuable enough, relocate for a while.

Quote: Dieter

Quote: calwatch

There are a few VPNs I know which give New Jersey addresses but most of the gambling sites ban VPNs. If you have a friend or relative in another state you can drop a used computer on and have a terminal you can remote into, that would work, but it's more trouble than it is worth.
link to original post

I would also assume that this will work for exactly one player account per friend or relative in another state.
There are more elegant solutions, like running an OpenVPN relay on a "router", but this will likely face the same fundamental limitation.

If the play is valuable enough, relocate for a while.
link to original post

I'll be honest, I have considered spending a night in Quartzsite (on the CA-AZ border east of Blythe on I-10) after a trip to Joshua Tree, just to hit the "no risk first bet" deals. You have to be well funded to maximize it but it is definitely positive EV. The other option would be popping across the river from Laughlin, but I haven't been to Laughlin in years and have no reason to go there.