Is daily fantasy sports gambling

Interesting question, I wonder if it will be contested in court someday. If DraftKings and other were owned by casinos, I wonder if the NFL would have the same opinion.

Gambling or not, daily fantasy sports faces scrutiny
Think wagering $20 to win $1 million by picking a winning combination of NFL players for a fantasy team is gambling? As the NFL season ramps up this weekend, the league says it's not. So do fast-growing daily fantasy sports companies like DraftKings and FanDuel that offer the games and advertise with teams in the long gambling-adverse pro football organization.

But that has Las Vegas casinos and sports books feeling like they're on the wrong end of a double-standard that bars traditional sports betting outside a handful of states, including Nevada, but allows daily fantasy sports in most of the United States.

The chief of sports book William Hill's U.S. operations, Joe Asher, says no one should pretend that one is OK and one isn't. He and others in the casino industry argue that both should be legalized and regulated.
http://hosted2.ap.org/PAPIT/ec2d8a4c1614477db0610df17d4a39ce/Article_2015-09-12-FBN--Fantasy%20Sports-Gambling/id-d292716458b84e4fb416dc0d7cbb5d0c

http://www.legalsportsreport.com/3337/mgm-says-fanduel-draftkings-are-gambling/

The question shouldn't be whether it's "gambling" but whether it requires regulatory oversight. Anytime you can stake money on an uncertain outcome (out of your own control) in an attempt to make more money, there should be some measure of oversight. That's a uniform philosophy statement and it's divorced from the specific origin of the uncertainty because, really, I don't think it matters *why* something is uncertain, just that it is. Such oversight is needed to combat the cheaters who take advantage of the unwary and the greedy.

I use the caveat "out of your own control" because there are obviously all sorts of personal uncertainties that we risk money on all the time. Starting a business, investing in expensive education, buying a house, etc. Actually, buying a house *is* regulated. Buying most things is regulated at a minimum under UCC-type laws.

Right now, if the uncertainty about your monetary gain stems from dice, cards, or RNGs, state gaming commissions have oversight and we call that gambling. If the uncertainty stems from whether a company's management will be successful in executing a profitable business, the SEC has oversight and we call that investing (or speculation). But both have their basis in the three prongs of "consideration, chance, and prize." As Franklin said, in this world nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mq785nJ0FXQ

Last week tonight with John oliver talks about it

Quote: MathExtremist

The question shouldn't be whether it's "gambling" but whether it requires regulatory oversight.investing (or speculation).

Wrong again. If it's "gambling", you shouldn't start. Even if it's your God-given right to make a fool of yourself.

Quote: MathExtremist

As Franklin said, in this world nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes.

Add on ME's ubiquitous twisting of unfounded logic.

It is gambling. The argument that it is based solely on skill, I personally think, is ridiculous. I've been expecting this to happen for some time now.

It will be banned from every state in the USA soon enough. The question in my mind is what laws they will be deemed to have violated (because it is a large number that are possible) and if they will hold them accountable for them. I believe they filed a class action against the NY Attorney general, which makes me feel that the law will come crashing down on them as a result.

Quote: mrsuit31

It is gambling. The argument that it is based solely on skill, I personally think, is ridiculous. I've been expecting this to happen for some time now.

It will be banned from every state in the USA soon enough. The question in my mind is what laws they will be deemed to have violated (because it is a large number that are possible) and if they will hold them accountable for them. I believe they filed a class action against the NY Attorney general, which makes me feel that the law will come crashing down on them as a result.

I will point out the fact there is a luck element involved doesn't mean it is not a game of skill. You do not have to be purely a skill based game to be considered not gambling legally. If the mere existence of a random element made a game with a wager illegal then many tournaments would not be allowed for instance backgammon, almost all modern board games, and a whole host of other things. All that is needed is the game to be based predominately on skill.

Now one could argue that sports betting is based predominately on luck rather than skill, something I personally disagree with but it could be argued. It however is a straw man to say that the game isn't purely skill based so illegal.

Quote: TheGrimReaper13

Add on ME's ubiquitous twisting of unfounded logic.

Ubiquitous twisting? Perhaps you feel aggrieved from a prior discussion, but I can't offer an apology for an unknown slight...

Quote: Twirdman

I will point out the fact there is a luck element involved doesn't mean it is not a game of skill. You do not have to be purely a skill based game to be considered not gambling legally. If the mere existence of a random element made a game with a wager illegal then many tournaments would not be allowed for instance backgammon, almost all modern board games, and a whole host of other things. All that is needed is the game to be based predominately on skill.

Now one could argue that sports betting is based predominately on luck rather than skill, something I personally disagree with but it could be argued. It however is a straw man to say that the game isn't purely skill based so illegal.

The question of predominance is actually a regulatory issue in most jurisdictions and it varies. What qualifies as "skill-based" in one jurisdiction may not in another. To wit: the new language in Nevada now permits wagering on games of skill. However, the definition of "wager" in NRS 463 is "a sum of money or representative of value that is risked on an occurrence for which the outcome is uncertain" so the question of skill vs. chance is moot. "Uncertainty" is sufficient.

As I said before, the question of categorization as chance vs. skill seems beside the point. To me, the important question is whether wagering should be regulated, and my answer is "absolutely." Whether the wagering is on a skill-based event, a chance-based event, or a hybrid game (see NGCB Reg 14), is unimportant.

In other words, I believe the Nevada action is correct. Nevada looked at FanDuel and said "you're taking wagers, you need to be licensed." They didn't need to characterize the game as "gambling" in order to determine that, because the money risked by players is on an uncertain outcome.

Quote: MathExtremist

The question of predominance is actually a regulatory issue in most jurisdictions and it varies. What qualifies as "skill-based" in one jurisdiction may not in another. To wit: the new language in Nevada now permits wagering on games of skill. However, the definition of "wager" in NRS 463 is "a sum of money or representative of value that is risked on an occurrence for which the outcome is uncertain" so the question of skill vs. chance is moot. "Uncertainty" is sufficient.

As I said before, the question of categorization as chance vs. skill seems beside the point. To me, the important question is whether wagering should be regulated, and my answer is "absolutely." Whether the wagering is on a skill-based event, a chance-based event, or a hybrid game (see NGCB Reg 14), is unimportant.

In other words, I believe the Nevada action is correct. Nevada looked at FanDuel and said "you're taking wagers, you need to be licensed." They didn't need to characterize the game as "gambling" in order to determine that, because the money risked by players is on an uncertain outcome.

That's how I feel. If there is money involved then it needs regulated. Anytime you get the sums of money involved as these sites do it leads to coruption. Many will argue that the mist curupt people are the regulators, but that's not the debate is about.

Of course DFS is gambling . As long as theres a chance to lose your money its gambling no matter how much skill . Its more like investing ,like poker but still it is gambling and you Cant say its Not gambling.

Quote: GWAE

That's how I feel. If there is money involved then it needs regulated. Anytime you get the sums of money involved as these sites do it leads to coruption. Many will argue that the mist curupt people are the regulators, but that's not the debate is about.

The problem is... who will regulate it? Sometimes regulation messes up a good thing. Online poker certainly tanked and that's spread to the casinos. I'm not saying that that wasn't going to eventually happen anyways, but they certainly shaved off a few years.

DFS definitely needs to be regulated.

In its current form, the game is so disgustingly predatory it is essentially a direct transfer of wealth from the squares to the sharps (like in poker). At least in poker, the fish understand there is a skill disparity and that they are playing against professionals.

Seems to me like many squares just like to drink and play so they probably dont care.
Btw nice try DFK and FD to try to make DFS be "not gambling" haha - not even US government can fall for that long.
Well ,then again...

I understand on fantasypros.com a red name for a player means that player is hurt usually and might not play, but what does a red name mean for a team on that site?