What will this mean to Las Vegas

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/blogs/prop-zero/Place-Your-Bet--Help-the-Debt-99780389.html

California wants to legalize sports gambling. Aside from the hypocrisy of the NFL on the subject, what are everyone's thoughts? What would this do to NV?

Myself I think there should be no reason the Feds allow just one state to have a monopoly on the practice is wrong and perhaps unconstitutional. If CA is successful it will mean any state can allow sports gambling. If that happens it becomes one more reason not to have to visit Las Vegas.

Despite the hit LV will take, I am for it. It is nonsense to say betting on games ruins the sport. With online places like Bodog you don't even need to find a bookie. Why not make it legitimate? Just keep the tax low enough to keep the business viable.

Actually, I've no idea if California really wants to legalize sports betting or not. As with most issues there are probably lobbyists and speech-writing hacks involved. What California probably wants is a way out of its budget deficits and any source of tax revenue (real or illusory) is being touted as appealing when all it really is that its more appealing than reigning in the politicians that brought about the deficit. San Diego has unfunded pensions. Taxes on sports betting will fund those pensions. San Diego will probably favor that.

Will it actually bring more taxes? Beats me.
Will it also bring other problems? Sure, but so what.
Will it be a boon to Vegas because it will entice more bettors that will ultimately trek to Vegas than otherwise would have? Beats me.
Will it bleed off visitors to Vegas in the manner that Indian Casinos have bled off motorists who would otherwise trek to Reno? Beats me.

The NFL has a public relations position the same way universities print speeches about academics come first but really know that alumni giving depends largely on athletics, not academics. Professors who want raises and pensions talk academics but know that athletics pays the bills. So speeches will take the high road, voting will take the low road. That's the way it always has been and always will be.

Would require an act of Congress.

Forgive my ignorance, but what is this federal law that prohibits other states from legalizing sports betting? I'm not aware of one. I thought Delaware was considering it.

If I lived in California I would fully support it. However, it don't envision it happening. The Indian casinos, professional sports, and religious right will lobby against it.

As for Nevada, I don't think the sports books make a great deal of money. That is why the limits are so low. The cost, I think, will be in losing customers that come for sports betting, but spend money outside of the sports books. Still, it won't be good for Nevada, but this is supposed to be free enterprise, get over it.

Quote:

What will this mean to Las Vegas

Well, if California gets sports betting, and assuming some day Cal recovers, it will still have sports betting and the attractions it always had, whereas, Vegas will always be in the desert and needs to stay unique as possible.

So... at any rate, we'll just have to offer more, or new, or something different, like always, or we could one day become the small unknown town we would have been otherwise.

And, of course, we have to compete with the Internet already.

Quote: Wizard

Forgive my ignorance, but what is this federal law that prohibits other states from legalizing sports betting? I'm not aware of one. I thought Delaware was considering it.

If I lived in California I would fully support it. However, it don't envision it happening. The Indian casinos, professional sports, and religious right will lobby against it.

As for Nevada, I don't think the sports books make a great deal of money. That is why the limits are so low. The cost, I think, will be in losing customers that come for sports betting, but spend money outside of the sports books. Still, it won't be good for Nevada, but this is supposed to be free enterprise, get over it.

I'm not sure of the name of the law, but NV, DE, and two other states I forget which are allowed sports gambling. NV is the only state where state law allows it, but that is why youy heard so much about DE considering legalizing it. Again, I don't see how this is allowed under the Constitution. States are supposed to be treated equal. Since only NV allows it there should not be a grandfather clause.

I agree with your last statement completely. Sports Books seem to be a small part of casino profit, though they drive other business to NV casinos. It is indeed free enterprise. Perhaps this would get casino execs to really innovate again?

Quote: AZDuffman

It is indeed free enterprise. Perhaps this would get casino execs to really innovate again?

I agree! The Vegas sports books have become too complacent and lazy. When two companies only control most of the casinos, I think that is bound to happen. If there were more competition I don't think there would be problems with:

1. Short expiration periods of as little as 30 days. While many books allow more, usually 60 or 120, I think anything less than a solid year is just not cool.
2. Refusal of expired tickets. I'm hearing about this happening more and more. A respectable book honors its bets. Period. Have a heart if a customer is a little late.
3. Low limits. The limit at the Paris, for example, for Super Bowl props was $100, unless you have a diamond card. Even the Four Queens was taking $2,000 to unknown customers off the street.

Its hard to quantify some things.

Do men go to barber shops that don't have magazines in them? Do women go to beauty parlors that don't place the driers in an area for gabfests?

Do bingo games bring much money into a casino? The answer is considered YES, they just don't bring much money into the bingo room, only the slot machines during the lulls between the bingo games.

Are sports books particularly profitable? NO!! If they were, the comps policies would be more generous. But you just try tracking bettors and you will see sports bettors are gamblers who go elsewhere. Trek to Vegas to get a bet down... and you might as well hit up the dice tables while you are there.

Its the same way with Poker Rooms... the rake pays for the drinks and jackpots and the salaries. Its getting the gamblers in the door that the casinos bank on. Sure poker players win and lose money to each other, not the casino, but they are gamblers: they bring money and they have to walk near the casino to get to the poker room. That right there is half the battle for the casino. If a guy owns a car dealership and plays poker, the casino wants him as close to that casino as possible. If they have to offer him a poker game, some half-naked tray lizards strutting around and some booze... then that's what the casino will do. Can you accurately measure the profit of a poker room under those conditions? Probably not.

Its hard to say whether a sports book is profitable. It attracts gamblers with money. Casinos tend to like that, but its hard to measure. Its like advertising. Its hard to measure the impact, but often easy to measure the lack of advertising.

The problem is always with the risks the casino is willing to take. Small drink glasses and cheap booze? Or large glasses and top-shelf stuff? A decent Book or a penny-pinching book that really does not want to assume any risk? There will always be someone who wants to Skim The Cream. Offer a sports book, but only take the easy bets from the suckers, not the hard bets from the sharpies!

Ticket expiration? Heck, I don't mind the ticket reading 30 or 60 days. I think the only problem is when the casinos try to enforce it. If you go to a dry cleaners with a receipt that is past thirty days you expect to get your clothes! The "No Tickee, No Shirtee" is a slogan best never followed. Thirty day expiration periods keep the lawyers and accountants happy but should be like those soft red ropes at Opening Night: they are guides, not really barriers. If you tell people 30 days, you get most of your tickets turned in promptly. The few people who find an uncashed ticket will feel pretty special when the Book cashes them because "you've been such a nice guy, so will do it for you". The Cream Skimmers will enforce those 30 day policies, a decent casino wouldn't dream of enforcing it!

Quote: Wizard

Forgive my ignorance, but what is this federal law that prohibits other states from legalizing sports betting? I'm not aware of one. I thought Delaware was considering it..

My guess would be that it is something to do with the Federal Wire Wager Act that was enacted sometime in the 60's, I think. If I remember correctly, the law was really enacted to cut into organized crime, but it has the side effect of technically making it illegal to run sports betting, since you have to transmit the results of the sporting events, and transmitting that information over the phone lines, internet lines, cellular lines, whatever, would be considered illegal according to this law.

Quote: konceptum

My guess would be that it is something to do with the Federal Wire Wager Act ...

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm still unconvinced. I thought the Wire Act basically made it illegal to make a bet over state lines using a "wire." Can you, or anyone, quote me chapter and verse of the Wire Act, or anything, that gives Nevada a monopoly on sports betting?

Quote: Wizard

...illegal to make a bet over state lines using a "wire." ...

My understanding is that the issue of doing it crossing state lines is the prohibition entirely

Quote: Wizard

I thought the Wire Act basically made it illegal to make a bet over state lines using a "wire."

It was originally the bookies that needed to use telegraphs and telephones: they needed the race results and they often needed to lay-off bets with each other since often sports bettors favor local teams. It was control of the race result wire services that gave organized crime such control over local bookmaking activities.

As far as Sports Books go, a federal law of perhaps dubious constitutionality effectively made sports books illegal in the USA but exempted existing or in-process sports books. New Jersey was the "in-process" state but New Jersey failed to actually complete anything within the statutorily prescribed one year period which I believe expired in 1994.

The question is did Congress intend to preempt state laws in the area of gambling due to an overriding need for uniform laws.

Its known as: The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act.

Quote: Wizard

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm still unconvinced. I thought the Wire Act basically made it illegal to make a bet over state lines using a "wire." Can you, or anyone, quote me chapter and verse of the Wire Act, or anything, that gives Nevada a monopoly on sports betting?

Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992
Title 28 Chapter 178

If California and other states start allowing sports betting what will Vegas come up with next? If they had any brains at all they would legalize prostitution in Clark, Washoe and Douglas counties. Set up the Dutch solution just as in Amsterdam and also relax the drug laws and have some form of reefer bar. Put the sin back into "Sin City"

Quote: Wizard

Still, it won't be good for Nevada, but this is supposed to be free enterprise, get over it.

I agree.

Nevada could try to diversify. I know not all of the state's economy is based on gambling, but much of it is. They need to attract other business as well. Of course that won't help the casinos, or necessarily Las Vegas either.

One business based in Nevada is Bigelow Aerospace. The company is building a space hotel based on an old inflatable design NASA studied but never used. They've launched two scale prototypes already, and have contracted with SpaceX for launch services. SpaceX, in turn, just succssfully launched its heavy lift rocket, the Falcon 9, and is developing a crewed capsule, Dragon.

Given the large amounts of uninhabited desert in Nevada, plus a good transportation hub in Vegas and existing rail lines, the state ought to lure development of launching facilities. Of course there's already one in development in New Mexico for Virgin Galactic, but that operation handles aircraft, not rockets.

Anyway, on other things, why is the expiration time of tickets an issue?

Admittedly I've never won that much, but I always cash slot/VP tickets within minutes of getting them (at the ticket redemption machines). I've never placed bets in a sports book, but if I did I'd also cash a winning ticket as soon as possible, certainly within a week.

So, as I see it, thirty days is much more time than I need.

It is if you forget about a ticket then find it at the bottom of your bag when you arrive home, say I am killing a few minutes before my show poking the poker machine, its time to go in I cash out stick the ticket in my bag then I magically find it while unpacking my luggage back in San Francisco! (true story by the way, but I took the loss it was a ticket for $2.75)

Quote: Nareed

One business based in Nevada is Bigelow Aerospace.

I'm all in favor of welcoming any non-gaming business to try to diversify. The big debate is in expanding the "clean energy" businesses. Personally, I favor it, but that is another discussion. Another topic is now that the private sector is getting into the space business, I'd like to propose scaling back NASA to doing just SETI and non-manned probes. In my opinion, the return on investment on the International Space Station and Space Shuttles was much too low.

Quote: Nareed

So, as I see it, thirty days is much more time than I need.

Not everybody can conveniently cash a ticket so quickly. Lots of bettors will not plan to return to the place where they made a bet for months. For example, somebody wants to bet a game that will end after they leave town, not to return for 6 months. Yes, you can mail tickets in, but it is inconvenient, not to mention the expense of a tracking envelope both ways for security.

Quote: Wizard

Another topic is now that the private sector is getting into the space business, I'd like to propose scaling back NASA to doing just SETI and non-manned probes.

It's heading that way already. Obama, in a rare move, pretty much has ended NASA's manned space program. Astronauts will still go to space under NASA, but private companies will develop the launch hardware mostly on their own.

Quote:

In my opinion, the return on investment on the International Space Station and Space Shuttles was much too low.

There was a return on the investment???? I mean beyond helping the Soviets go broke trying to copy the Shuttle.

Seriously, the lesson is "I will not base a multi-decade space program on an experimental design."

Quote:

Not everybody can conveniently cash a ticket so quickly. Lots of bettors will not plan to return to the place where they made a bet for months.

Ok, that's a good reason.

BTW I was nearly in that situation myself. My brother asked me whether I could palce a bet for the worldcup while in Vgeas. I suggested he try the local sports book. He realized that made better sense.

I never place a long term prop bet in Vegas, as I'll never get to cash it. I would possibly do so if I new I could cash it out on my trip next year.

I don't bet on sports. But if I didwhile in Vegas, I would only place such bets as would be resolved while my stay lasts.

In the summer of 2006 I went to Orlando. I bought a few lotto tickets, then realized they'd be very hard to collect if I won anything. Since then I've not repeated such behavior. I didn't win anything, BTW.

Anyway, if the sports books are losing prospective bettors due to their ticket policies, they'd change such policies. So either 1) they're unaware of lost business or 2) don't care because whatever's lost doesn't amount to much.

Of course it would be better to simply allow sports betting all over the US. Casinos are pretty much within easy reach of the entire country now, state lotteries are prevalent all over, so what's a little more legal gambling but extra tax revenue? I assume there's plenty of illegal sports betting outside of Nevada anyway.

The pro sports leagues have no reason to be concerned, either. Sports books are prevalent in places like England, where people also devote much free time to watching sports. The various leagues could institute a one-strike policy, though, for their own mebers: bet on the sport of your league and you're banned for life. I'd apply this to players, owners, coaches, officials and anyone else who can directly affect the outcome of a game (not, for instance, the people holding the chains at NFL games). Naturally they could make bets in other sports.

Hell, if the NFL is so concerned about its image, it can deplore and condemn all sports gambling, and even run ads warning about compulsive gambling. The league already advertises itself endlessly in its own cable network.

Quote: Nareed

There was a return on the investment???? I mean beyond helping the Soviets go broke trying to copy the Shuttle.

Seriously, the lesson is "I will not base a multi-decade space program on an experimental design."

I think we did OK on the Shuttle, all things considered. We did far, far better on the moonshot program, but the space program in nothing but a big net winner. NASA is much about "pure" research. During the 1980s there started to be discussion that we needed to do more "applied" research. But I think much is lost when you stop trying to discover for discovery sake.

Sports gambling at Vegas doesn't make the casinos much money. It's just an added feature at the casino. Over 12 months ending May 2010, Nevada grossed $147.2 million on total gaming win of $10.4 billion or about 1.4 percent. So adding sports books in California will be meaningless, both for California and Vegas.

Quote: Nareed

There was a return on the investment???? I mean beyond helping the Soviets go broke trying to copy the Shuttle.

There was also the Hubble telescope. I'm sure there were other things accomplished, but I'm not a good one to question about it. Bankrupting the Soviets in the arms race I think was a good use of money, but the program went on for decades after that. What I hope we've learned is that there isn't much need to put humans in space. For the tourists who want to go there, great, that should provide lots of jobs in space tourism. Better the tourists pay for it than the taxpayers.

Quote: Wizard

There was also the Hubble telescope.

Sure. Just remember it came within some lenses, two solar panels and a plumbing fixture of being worse than useless. Given it wasn't useless, the story of how the subcontractor meticulously ground the primary mirror to exactly the wrong specificatiosn can be very funny.

But the Hubble, along with many other useful satellites, could have been launched by a cheaper unmanned, disposable rocket just as easily.

I'll grant you the Shuttle did serve as a repair plattform, which saved Hubble, Solar Max and other very expensive hardware (which would otherwise have become expensive hazzards to navigation). It also did a good job retrieving a few defective satellites (at elast two comsats I know of). But as a launch system it was an expensive embrassament.

Remember in the late 70s and early 80s NASA promised two shuttle launches per month at least? It would be cheaper than previous systems because it was reusable and all that? I didn't know it then, but they were a) being unjustifiably optimistic about what was, after all, an experimental launch system and b) outright lying about costs.

Quote:

Bankrupting the Soviets in the arms race I think was a good use of money, but the program went on for decades after that.

I was joking about that. The Soviets did develop their shuttle, a very similar system called Buran, and they even did one test flight. But that was a relatively minor matter. For one thing, they did more to bankrupt themselves building deffective space stations, then trying to keep them operating far longer than their designs allowed. Also trying to keep up with America's high-tech arsenal.

Quote:

What I hope we've learned is that there isn't much need to put humans in space. For the tourists who want to go there, great, that should provide lots of jobs in space tourism. Better the tourists pay for it than the taxpayers.

Quite the contrary. What we learned is there's little role for humans in low-Earth orbit. We also learned the folly of spending money in space rather than investing it. And lastly we learned governments just are not and cannot be serious pionneers.

The large stumbling block for things like space-based mannufacturing, missions to Mars and beyond, is the cost of launching people and materiel from Earth. So long as all resources used in space originate on Earth, it will be too expensive to do much beyond what we've already got in low Earth orbit (chich happens to be a lot).

What you want are resources located in cheaper places from which to launch. We have one such place just 300,000 kilomerters from here: the Moon.

Simply look at the Saturn IB launcher or a Soyuz rocket. That's what you need in roder to place 2 or 3 people in orbit around the Earth. If you want them to go as far as the Moon, you need something like a Saturn V.

Now look at the Apollo command and service module, plus the lunar lander. That's what you need to boost two people into lunar orbit and get three people from the Moon to the Earth.

Of course building industries in the Moon will be outrageously expensive. But once in place they'll save an awful lot of money down the road. NASA had a good start with the Apollo program, and plans to expand once some preliminary exploration happened. But a government agency not handing out goodies has to be popular or it looses its mission. So fine, we showed up the Soviets, now burn those blueprints, smash those tools and transfer more money to milk subsidies.

That's why I'm hopeful that private enterprise is now getting into the space business (something the likes of Boeing, Rockwell and others migth have done on their own earlier, but chose to suck at NASA's teat instead). A for-profit company won't spend billions to land a few show missions and then abandon the Moon altogether.

Quote: Nareed

Quite the contrary. What we learned is there's little role for humans in low-Earth orbit. We also learned the folly of spending money in space rather than investing it. And lastly we learned governments just are not and cannot be serious pionneers.

I wouldn't say that at all. Look at the exploration of the world. In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue. But it took 100 years to really start settling the New World. And that was just the start. But there were also explorers before Columbus. It was many baby steps.

Space Exploration must be looked at like pure research--low initial return on investment but loads of potential. We don't know what we will find, but we do know low-orbit must be mastered before the moon can be settled. NASA is a very, very small part of the Federal Budget yet it returns more than anything dollar for dollar.

Quote: Nareed

I'll grant you the Shuttle did serve as a repair plattform, which saved Hubble, Solar Max and other very expensive hardware (which would otherwise have become expensive hazzards to navigation). It also did a good job retrieving a few defective satellites (at elast two comsats I know of). But as a launch system it was an expensive embrassament.

Remember in the late 70s and early 80s NASA promised two shuttle launches per month at least? It would be cheaper than previous systems because it was reusable and all that? I didn't know it then, but they were a) being unjustifiably optimistic about what was, after all, an experimental launch system and b) outright lying about costs.

A large portion of the shuttle's cost problems stem from the USAF's requirements during the design phase. Had NASA been able to build a reusable platform for reaching orbit it would have been much cheaper. Unfortunately what they had to build was a launch vehicle capable of delivering and retriving the largest payloads of the day to and from both equatorial and polar orbits, launchable from high latitudes, and with a 1,500 mile cross-range landing capability.

It would be unfair to compare it to cheaper launch systems which can not launch from Vandenberg, rendezvous with friendly or hostile spy satellites in polar orbits, and return them to Earth.

Quote:

A large portion of the shuttle's cost problems stem from the USAF's requirements during the design phase

As a matter of fact, missions into space have, and would likely always have some national security interests -- so it's unlikely the government is going to stay uninvolved to any great extent anyway. Private industry could have developed more independently, but the government wouldn't have been far away or likely idle anyway.

They sometimes mention scant details of black projects in the news of shuttle flights.

Quote: AZDuffman

We don't know what we will find, but we do know low-orbit must be mastered before the moon can be settled. NASA is a very, very small part of the Federal Budget yet it returns more than anything dollar for dollar.

It's about cost and convenience. Materials from the Moon would be cheaper to send anywhere else in the Solar system, including low-Earth orbit.

In order to orbit the Earth, you need a speed of about 11 km/s realtive to the surface of the Earth. That's why you need monstrous rockets which are over 90% fuel and oxidizer by weight. The Moon has a lower escape velocity and lacks an atmosphere. You could launch cargo, and conceivably poeple, into space using a maglev track and a ramp. No fuel at all, just electricity generated by solar cells. BTW solar energy works great on the Moon, where you have the Sun in the sky unobstrocted for two weeks straight.

So whatever you want to do in space, be it frolick forever in low Earth orbit or settle the solar system, you start at the Moon.

Take this analogy. Suppose explorers in the 16th century would not move into the new continent until they mastered a strip 100 yards wide along the beach, getting occasional supplies from Europe.

Quote: rxwine

As a matter of fact, missions into space have, and would likely always have some national security interests -- so it's unlikely the government is going to stay uninvolved to any great extent anyway.

Indeed. In fact America's first satellite, Explorer 1 was launched by the US Army, after a failed attempt by the US Navy's Vanguard.

Trouble is what the military needs isn't always what civilians need. The shuttle's designed was largely determined by the needs of the Air Force and to a lesser extent the other services. In fact, there was a shuttle launch pad built at Vandenberg AFB for polar-orbit military shuttle flights. No shuttles ever launched from there, but the Air Force does use throw-away rockets there to launch satellites.

So having one program to serve both purposes was, at the very least, a gigantic folly, especially given how little the military actually used the shuttle. Imagine if all commercial aircraft were built to the same specs as the C-117 transport, complete with a ramp door.

Quote:

Private industry could have developed more independently, but the government wouldn't have been far away or likely idle anyway.

Sure. In fact the government should keep at it, for military purposes. The ariforce tested a kind of spaceplane earlier this year (I want to say XB-47, but I'm not sure). It's a kind of unmanned, down-sized shuttle launched atop a conventional booster.

But leave the civilian program, such as it is, to private enterprise.

You won't see SpaceX, T-space, SpaceDev, Bigelow Aerospace, Scaled Composites, Virgin Galactic, Blue Origin, etc etc invest billions of dollars into putting on a few show missions to the Moon and then abandon the whole project.

NASA's program can best be summed up by a very cynical quote from Larry Niven: "We can put a man on the Moon, but we can't put a man on the Moon." (those of you who remember the 70s will understand it better).