zoobrew
zoobrew
Joined: Jan 12, 2015
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 309
September 12th, 2015 at 1:14:11 PM permalink
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
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
September 12th, 2015 at 2:02:25 PM permalink
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.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
Wonko33
Wonko33
Joined: Aug 29, 2015
  • Threads: 15
  • Posts: 122
November 16th, 2015 at 8:06:46 AM permalink
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mq785nJ0FXQ

Last week tonight with John oliver talks about it
So Wizard, still no basic strategy for strip poker huh?
TheGrimReaper13
TheGrimReaper13
Joined: Sep 25, 2015
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 216
November 16th, 2015 at 8:13:15 AM permalink
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.
So much bullshit; so little time!
mrsuit31
mrsuit31
Joined: May 29, 2010
  • Threads: 82
  • Posts: 1316
November 16th, 2015 at 9:43:27 AM permalink
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.
.
Twirdman
Twirdman
Joined: Jun 5, 2013
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 1004
November 16th, 2015 at 10:01:44 AM permalink
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.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
November 16th, 2015 at 10:20:13 AM permalink
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...
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
November 16th, 2015 at 10:39:45 AM permalink
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.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
GWAE
GWAE
Joined: Sep 20, 2013
  • Threads: 93
  • Posts: 9854
November 16th, 2015 at 10:59:03 AM permalink
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.
Expect the worst and you will never be disappointed. I AM NOT PART OF GWAE RADIO SHOW
zuti6
zuti6
Joined: Oct 13, 2015
  • Threads: 31
  • Posts: 87
November 17th, 2015 at 11:27:31 PM permalink
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.

  • Jump to: