The Atlantic: "Legalizing sports gambling was a huge mistake"

The Atlantic has an article decrying the proliferation of legal online sports betting, for the havoc it's wrought among addicted gamblers, along with some unexpected results, including (in the newly-legal states) increased domestic violence against partners when the home team loses.

There's the age-old question of how to balance the freedoms of those who want to responsibly engage in something dangerous (e.g. drinking, firearms, driving, drugs, gambling) while protecting those who could be hurt by it. With one extreme (prohibition, or excessive regulation), people complain that their rights are being infringed, and on the other extreme (no or minimal regulation), then a lot of people get hurt. So, we either got freedoms or an absence of harms, we can't have both. Usually, the compromise has been to shoot for the middle: allow the risky behavior but put in a whole bunch of safeguards.

In this case, legislators and regulators have clearly chosen the route of little regulation, and with it, the associated harms.

If they were to take the middle ground like they do with most other issues, trying to balance freedoms against protections, then one simple approach could put a serious dent in problem gambling:

(1) Must have a Players Card in order to make any bet, either brick-and-mortar or online. You fork over the card at table games, and machines are set to disallow play without the card inserted. Old machines that don't require a card are grandfathered in for X years, but newly-manufactured machines must comply, and for the first X years, Players Cards are scanned at the door. This might be foreign in Vegas, but I've visited casinos (elsewhere) where they card at the door, so it's certainly possible.

(2) Players set daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly loss limits when they sign up for the card. Players are way more likely to be reasonable when signing up for the card then when getting caught up in the heat of the moment. Forced to come up with numbers, likely only a small percentage will be comfortable entering amounts that they know exceed their means. With married couples, both must sign.

Those who are about to object that this approach isn't foolproof can congratulate themselves on missing the point. *No* law or regulation is foolproof. Having speed limits doesn't stop *everyone* from speeding, but it stops *lots* of people from speeding, and that saves lives. No one would suggest that we get rid of speed limits just because some people still speed, but they were sure about to object to my gambling reform suggestion based on the fact that *some* people would simply set loss limits beyond what they can afford. (And a few will probably object anyway, since they'll lunge for the Reply button after reading the previous paragraph, and before reading this one, thinking they're being really clever for identifying how the reform doesn't stop problem gambling 100%.)

A correlation between sporting events and domestic violence has been cited for a long time and even before there was universal betting, but I'm pretty sure that has been investigated and found to be apocryphal.

I think a stronger effect will be on sports themselves, as betting has gotten so popular among young guys, the age of college or pro jocks, that I would venture a majority of them have Draft Kings on their phones and bet and think nothing of it. I do not believe for one second Ohtani wasn't betting, and had his manservant or whatever the heck he was run the bets and take the fall for him. It's as mainstream and accepted among that demographic as playing first-person shooters. That's why I've been learning to bet the shave rather than bet the game in NCAA.

Speed limits are to protect other people on the road. If degenerate gamblers ruin their lives that's their problem.

Anyway the real reason it wouldn't work in most markets is the degenerate who reaches his loss limit will just walk or drive to the nearest competition and continue with yet another players card.

Also I am somewhat baffled about needing a players card to enter. How can any new players sign up if they can't even enter?

Of course I would love do it yourself kiosks located somewhere off property. Oh the dream of being able to print so many extra players cards for my operation.

I just hate all of the advertising for sports betting. That is something which should be outlawed, but the leagues would never permit it since they love the revenue, and the players do too since that increases the amount the owners have to pay them. You could not outlaw people talking about lines, bets, etc. due to the First Amendment, but you could sure ban advertising for sports betting much like tobacco ads are banned. I also would require a more stringent Know Your Customer, more akin to opening a brokerage account. Years of betting, income, net worth. Maybe a quiz if you do high risk bets like this dummy who didn't realize that "total touchdowns" refers to the player physically carrying the ball into the end zone, and not passing it to someone else: https://www.reddit.com/r/gambling/comments/1g2zfw3/how_is_this_a_loss_man/

Quote: MichaelBluejay

The Atlantic has an article decrying the proliferation of legal online sports betting ...

Having to have a player's card is dead on arrival, or I should say maybe you'd have to re-invent what they really are. Brick and mortar casinos aren't going to want to change and will resist.

A player's card for online would be a virtual card, so it seems like a change without a difference. I like your idea that everyone should set a gambling limit when they sign up, but be advised that nothing is easier *now* than getting started online.

It's too easy to put down the initial deposit for online gambling, a bunch of methods are available and these sites question *nothing* to take your money. Withdrawing money, however, is another matter and at that point the scrutiny is intense. Forcing these sites to initialize the scrutiny from the get-go would be a great start to cleaning up their act.

I do not believe the domestic violence part. Years back there was a Superbowl commercial claiming domestic violence increased during the game. Said wife or kids made noise or walked in front of the TV whatever and violence.

It was later debunked as mostly fake stats.

I didn’t like the idea of a mandatory player card either. Why should I have to give my info to play a few hands? I’m an adult treat me like one.

This is a great SOOPOO discussion on ‘what should the government do for us’. I want the government to use regulation so that the sites don’t cheat. As long as they don’t, leave them alone. Individuals can and should do what they want. If you want to protect the poor and downtrodden just end government sanctioned lotteries!
Did someone say married couples should require the spouse’s permission? In the pantheon of stupid regulations, that would be in the first tier. Should I need my spouse’s permission to buy a Rolex, go skydiving, bike ride the Camino, etc….?

Add sugared soda, McDonalds, motorcycle riding, spelunking, etc….

Quote: SOOPOO

This is a great SOOPOO discussion on ‘what should the government do for us’. I want the government to use regulation so that the sites don’t cheat. As long as they don’t, leave them alone. Individuals can and should do what they want. If you want to protect the poor and downtrodden just end government sanctioned lotteries!
Did someone say married couples should require the spouse’s permission? In the pantheon of stupid regulations, that would be in the first tier. Should I need my spouse’s permission to buy a Rolex, go skydiving, bike ride the Camino, etc….?

Add sugared soda, McDonalds, motorcycle riding, spelunking, etc….
link to original post

Some of those questions seem like a discussion with the spouse instead of government or forum imo. I suppose that’s your point, but, anyway, the government won’t allow me to fly my wingsuit in national parks for example.

When the state of Missouri first legalized casino gambling they required cards for all players and the slot machines wouldn't play unless the card was in. I believe they started with a daily loss limit of $200 per person and eventually increased it and then just removed it completely.

One of the problems they ran into was players would buy cards from other players and play on the purchased card. That problem could have been mitigated if they required you to show id and the player card every time you cashed out.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

(2) Players set daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly loss limits when they sign up for the card. Players are way more likely to be reasonable when signing up for the card then when getting caught up in the heat of the moment. Forced to come up with numbers, likely only a small percentage will be comfortable entering amounts that they know exceed their means. With married couples, both must sign.
link to original post

Problem: tell me what happens when someone betting online from home would have made a winning bet but was prevented from doing so by the limit.

.
imo the States, and or Feds need to step into this wasteland on the side of the Players
books should not be able to limit the bet size of winning bettors which they are obviously doing - unless they have a top limit for all players
the books (or at least some of them) seem to want a situation where they either beat the player or if they can't beat the player then they want to be able to insure that he can only win smallish amounts

this is not right - but I doubt anything will be done to change it - no faith in the system

.

Quote: lilredrooster

.
imo the States, and or Feds need to step into this wasteland on the side of the Players
books should not be able to limit the bet size of winning bettors which they are obviously doing - unless they have a top limit for all players
the books (or at least some of them) seem to want a situation where they either beat the player or if they can't beat the player then they want to be able to insure that he can only win smallish amounts

this is not right - but I doubt anything will be done to change it - no faith in the system

.
link to original post

I fear if sportbooks didn't have the ability to restrict or ban pros, they would charge more vig.

Quote: lilredrooster

.
imo the States, and or Feds need to step into this wasteland on the side of the Players
books should not be able to limit the bet size of winning bettors which they are obviously doing - unless they have a top limit for all players
the books (or at least some of them) seem to want a situation where they either beat the player or if they can't beat the player then they want to be able to insure that he can only win smallish amounts

this is not right - but I doubt anything will be done to change it - no faith in the system

.
link to original post

As someone who has been limited, I actually disagree with you. They are not limiting me from betting on the Yankees/Guardians money line tonight. What they are doing is limiting how much I can bet on their ‘specials’, or profit boosts, or the like. And just stopped giving me any of those offers.

I’m not sure how I feel about your point if there is a guy who is NOT taking advantage of their special offers/promos but is just good at handicapping. Like if you can hit 58% of your even money bets you can make big $$$ from these books (I know I can’t). I actually don’t know if they would ban/limit such a player.

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: lilredrooster

.
imo the States, and or Feds need to step into this wasteland on the side of the Players
books should not be able to limit the bet size of winning bettors which they are obviously doing - unless they have a top limit for all players
the books (or at least some of them) seem to want a situation where they either beat the player or if they can't beat the player then they want to be able to insure that he can only win smallish amounts

this is not right - but I doubt anything will be done to change it - no faith in the system

.
link to original post

I fear if sportbooks didn't have the ability to restrict or ban pros, they would charge more vig.
link to original post

I wonder how many bettors got restricted even though they just got lucky for a couple of weeks
prolly lots
it's kinna comical when you think about it -

and I wonder how brick & mortar books in LV do it - do they restrict bettors______?____how could they do that______? ____the dude could just send in his sister to make a big bet

I don't know about that - haven't heard much talk about it

.

Quote: lilredrooster

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: lilredrooster

.
imo the States, and or Feds need to step into this wasteland on the side of the Players
books should not be able to limit the bet size of winning bettors which they are obviously doing - unless they have a top limit for all players
the books (or at least some of them) seem to want a situation where they either beat the player or if they can't beat the player then they want to be able to insure that he can only win smallish amounts

this is not right - but I doubt anything will be done to change it - no faith in the system

.
link to original post

I fear if sportbooks didn't have the ability to restrict or ban pros, they would charge more vig.
link to original post

I wonder how many bettors got restricted even though they just got lucky for a couple of weeks
prolly lots
it's kinna comical when you think about it -

and I wonder how brick & mortar books in LV do it - do they restrict bettors______?____how could they do that______? ____the dude could just send in his sister to make a big bet

I don't know about that - haven't heard much talk about it

.
link to original post

I think you are missing the point. On the Bills /Titans line at 9.5 points if you bet the Bills you lay -110. If you bet the Titans you lay -110. The books set the lines to get 1/2 the money on one side and 1/2 the other. In the vast majority of cases a ‘smart’ better is just canceled out by a ‘dumb’ better. So the books win no matter what.
So the ‘unboosted, no special offer’ bet that a brick and mortar casino accepts is NOT the same as my bet which instead of -110 I’m getting +123 at my online Sportsbook.

Are there examples of a line so poorly designed by the books that the money is not split evenly or close to evenly? Of course, but not for the vast majority of ‘big money’ events.

Quote: SOOPOO

Are there examples of a line so poorly designed by the books that the money is not split evenly or close to evenly? Of course, but not for the vast majority of 'BIG MONEY' EVENTS

okay, but last December Cleveland State covered a 10 point spread against Bradley
a Manager (glorified ball boy) could know much more about those teams than those who made the lines
he could call his buddy in LV to make a big bet on Cleveland St. - right______?
they would have to accept the bet or if not "have to" they most probably would accept it
correct______?

.

Quote: lilredrooster

Quote: SOOPOO

Are there examples of a line so poorly designed by the books that the money is not split evenly or close to evenly? Of course, but not for the vast majority of 'BIG MONEY' EVENTS

okay, but last December Cleveland State covered a 10 point spread against Bradley
a Manager (glorified ball boy) could know much more about those teams than those who made the lines
he could call his buddy in LV to make a big bet on Cleveland St. - right______?
they would have to accept the bet or if not "have to" they most probably would accept it
correct______?

.
link to original post

Ok. You’ve moved on to a different topic. The books DO NOT have to accept any bet. They certainly limit the amount on a variety of events for a variety of reasons. I can assure you if I tried to get $1,000,000 on an obscure tennis doubles event being played in Quito tomorrow, there is likely no book that would take that action. That is different from an individual bettor being throttled on all of their bets.

What you are talking about is either game fixing, or illegal use of inside information. That is a risk the books take every day. Individual player props are the most vulnerable.

I’ll give an easy example. The Bills make a ‘game plan’ for each team leading up to the game. The ‘game plan’ last week included RB Davis getting the ball A LOT. Now with regular RB back from injury, will plan to be to get Davis the ball 1/2 of the 40 run plays? Or 1/3 of them? Or 1/10 of them? Those inside ‘the building’ might know the plan, and could bet Davis O/U accordingly.

I’ll give you one SPECIFIC example that occurred to ME. I took care of a Bills player in the OR the day after a game. I saw the exact injury and how they fixed it. He was still scheduled to play next Sunday, but I thought there was NO WAY he’d be effective. I didn’t discuss this with ANYONE, and if sports betting was available there is NO WAY I’d have bet one dollar on that game.
(Not that it matters, but I was WRONG! He had a good game!)

So the idea of loss limits for players is a daily or weekly or over all loss limit?

Say player A gets lucky and wins a $50,000 jackpot and he previously set a $200 a day loss limit. You think the casino will be happy to know their own system will block them from recouping their money for a REALLY long time?

I have no doubt that sports gambling creates more losers who then hit their significant other. (consider fan violence at European soccer games.)

But the role of government is to restrict objectionable behavior, such as hitting your wife, not to remove all the things in life that anger people or cause them unhappiness.

Quote: gordonm888

I have no doubt that sports gambling creates more losers who then hit their significant other. (consider fan violence at European soccer games.)

But the role of government is to restrict objectionable behavior, such as hitting your wife, not to remove all the things in life that anger people or cause them unhappiness.
link to original post

I suppose if the goal is eliminating anger and unhappiness, banning wives might be a more effective method than banning sports betting.

Soccer violence I'm not sure about, not being a fan, but does that really have anything to do with betting, or even winning or losing? Maybe it's just an extension of enthusiasm. When I was a schoolboy going to varsity football games, squaring off with an appropriate "dance partner" from the other school and exchanging a few blows was considered honorable behavior, manly and loyal, and earned only a minimal punishment. Maybe they're just doing that. Or maybe it's done for other reasons, no idea really.

Quote: gordonm888

I have no doubt that sports gambling creates more losers who then hit their significant other. (consider fan violence at European soccer games.)

But the role of government is to restrict objectionable behavior, such as hitting your wife, not to remove all the things in life that anger people or cause them unhappiness.
link to original post

If they are going to cause domestic violence over sports I doubt betting on the game matters.

I would imagine that setting these kinds of low limits has potential to distort the books, no? Why would I, a betting idiot, put $200 on a superfavorite instead of using my $200 in allowed action for that 2394823945 leg parlay? Do I want to potentially win $8 or a bajillion (subject to book limits and maximum payouts)?

I can see people trying to buy the biggest potential win if they can only bet so much. Some percentage of wagers would be not necessarily best buys. This would change how money is distributed across wager options. And, despite the low probability of winning these wagers, books would face potentially massive liability if they come through.

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

A correlation between sporting events and domestic violence has been cited for a long time and even before there was universal betting, but I'm pretty sure that has been investigated and found to be apocryphal.

Be extremely careful here. Domestic violence is a horrible thing and a connection shouldn't be dismissed flippantly, because it might suit people who want to bet sports (such as myself). I am not saying this is necessarily true of you or any one else, I am emphasizing the importance of eliminating personal bias.

There are studies showing links between domestic violence and sports betting. There are also studies questioning those studies. It is very easy but also very important to debunk studies implying casual links between things. It is very difficult to separate cause from effect: are bettors in dire straits economically attracted to sports betting or did it impoverish them in the first place?, for example. Do mental health problems cause people to bet aggressively or does it cause mental health problems? There's a lot of nuance here - the relationship is not 100% nor zero.

I DO think you have to acknowledge that in some cases sports betting/gambling is causing domestic violence and destroying lives. There are people who seemed to be leading essentially exemplary lives up to the point they became addicted to gambling, and suffered as a result. The extent of this is debatable.

Quote: Archvaldor1

...
I DO think you have to acknowledge that in some cases sports betting/gambling is causing domestic violence and destroying lives. There are people who seemed to be leading essentially exemplary lives up to the point they became addicted to gambling, and suffered as a result. The extent of this is debatable.
link to original post

Hypothesize that the relationship between the two is not causal, but part of a syndrome.

I am of the age where corporal punishment of children was nearly universal, and socially and legally accepted. Not to make anyone sad, but my earliest memories are of beatings. A couple of generations before mine and corporal punishment of a wife was also generally accepted, more or less depending on ethnicity and socioeconomic class. So you can call what we would normally consider the paradigms of "domestic violence" as more of an artifact of a modern way of treating interpersonal relations.

Now that aside, consider that bad habits, including addictions and lack of self-control leading to violence are related, and caused by personal weakness. I am sure that the same people who have an addiction to sports betting also have a higher rate of domestic violence. But I would be just as sure that they have a higher rate of: substance abuse, violence in general, criminal record, bad credit, poor financial decisions, and physical health problems. Call it "Lowlife Syndrome," if you need a name for it. But none of those things are necessarily caused by any of the others and rather are symptoms of a deeper underlying problem.

The characteristics of people I know who are perpetually in some kind of trouble are: stupidity, selfishness, stubbornness. Those three things tend to run together and will lead to all of these problems I mentioned and many more, and sometimes all at once. I don't think taking away one of his bad habits, in this case sports betting, is going to have any effect on his beating his wife, and he surely had the same attitudes that result in him being a wifebeater before the expansion of sports betting.