Supreme Court allows sports betting
http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/23501236/supreme-court-strikes-federal-law-prohibiting-sports-gambling
From the NYT
The betting law, called the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, prohibited states from authorizing sports gambling. It exempted Nevada, where sports betting has long been legal, along with sports lotteries in Delaware, Montana and Oregon. Other states were given a year to opt in, but none acted in time.
Not just because of the sports betting legalization, but the Hard Rock now opening up and maybe more casinos and entertainment to come. Might be a resurgence in a town that used to be a tourist icon because of the combination of the beach and the casinos.
Maybe the Hard Rock high executives knew this was coming behind the scenes and maybe more potential to come.
Is there any good US based apps that most of you guys use to sports bet (since it's legal in Vegas - and now finally legal country wide)?Quote: SM777Finally, the Supreme Court has removed the federal ban on sports betting. I think Monmouth Park will begin taking bets today!
http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/23501236/supreme-court-strikes-federal-law-prohibiting-sports-gambling
Quote: RomesIs there any good US based apps that most of you guys use to sports bet (since it's legal in Vegas - and now finally legal country wide)?
The William Hill app is great, and they're obviously set up well for nationwide expansion for easy deposits and cash outs.
But, the Superbook at Westgate offers the most betting options, and the fairest lines (generally). If I could only have one, that would be it.
Quote: beachbumbabsJust beat me posting. Well played
From the NYT
The betting law, called the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, prohibited states from authorizing sports gambling. It exempted Nevada, where sports betting has long been legal, along with sports lotteries in Delaware, Montana and Oregon. Other states were given a year to opt in, but none acted in time.
Cool
Maybe I can play Yahoo fantasy sports leagues for real money
Yahoo had Florida residents banned from participating in real money leagues.
Quote: terapinedCool
Maybe I can play Yahoo fantasy sports leagues for real money
Yahoo had Florida residents banned from participating in real money leagues.
Fantasy sports is different because of the entry fee (consideration) type of gambling it involves. I was involved in a potential eSports business that I decided to not pursue and fantasy sports and eSports / skill based gaming fall under the 2006 Unlawful Gambling Act and that is still in play. If something involves consideration or entry fee that is part of the prize pool, it is considered unlawful gambling.
It's a tricky and grey area though because on a state level, many states, around 38 or so differentiate between skill gaming and gambling(element of chance) but on the federal level it's banned. With the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution, federal law does trump state law when there is an indifference, but if it's not something that really matters such as international relations the federal govt generally doesnt intervene. The thing is though, this is a states rights issue and the federal govt is not even allowed to tell the states of what they can and cannot do per the 10th amendment. The problem is banks and merchants would still not open a bank account for my business regardless.
I believe fantasy sports and skill based gaming will be the next thing to be ruled upon probably in the coming years to clear out any confusion of what is and what is not unlawful gambling just like what happened today with sports betting.
Quote: SM777Finally, the Supreme Court has removed the federal ban on sports betting. I think Monmouth Park will begin taking bets today!
The Supreme Court removed THIS federal ban on sports betting. It's not that sweeping a decision, and the ruling certainly doesn't mean that sports gambling is a constitutional right, or that sports bets can be taken immediately anywhere. Each state will now have to decide individually if it wants to allow sports books, and each state has the power to decided how to regulate them.
If the federal government wants to, it can still pass legislation that regulates sports betting to whatever degree it deems necessary, including eliminating sports betting nationwide, or effectively restricting it to certain states based on neural criteria.
Quote: UP84The Supreme Court removed THIS federal ban on sports betting. It's not that sweeping a decision, and the ruling certainly doesn't mean that sports gambling is a constitutional right, or that sports bets can be taken immediately anywhere. Each state will now have to decide individually if it wants to allow sports books, and each state has the power to decided how to regulate them.
If the federal government wants to, it can still pass legislation that regulates sports betting to whatever degree it deems necessary, including eliminating sports betting nationwide, or effectively restricting it to certain states based on neural criteria.
Wrong. The federal govt has no say in this per the 10th amendment and this was long overdue since this is a states rights issue. You are right though, it is now up to each state to decide whether or not they will allow it.
Quote: ZenKinGWrong. The federal govt has no say in this per the 10th amendment and this was long overdue since this is a states rights issue. You are right though, it is now up to each state to decide whether or not they will allow it.
Wrong. If you read the decision, or went to law school, you would know why.
Quote: UP84Wrong. If you read the decision, or went to law school, you would know why.
Right or wrong is semantics. This is now a state decision on if they'd like to allow sports betting. Similar to lotteries, which 44 states allow.
Quote: SM777Right or wrong is semantics. This is now a state decision on if they'd like to allow sports betting. Similar to lotteries, which 44 states allow.
It was always a state decision, but just like with skill gaming people were hesitant and didnt want to be the guinea pig. Like I always said, if people only understood their Constitution. There didnt even need to be a Supreme Court Decision for this. All it does is clear it up for the uneducated.
There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the federal gov't to control gambling laws. Federal statutes do NOT override the Constitution. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Just because there is a statute on the books doesn't mean you have to follow it if it's unconstitutional, that's what people dont understand. Since there is nothing in the Constitution regarding regulating gambling, it is reserved to the states per the 10th amendment and is and always has been a state's rights issue and up to the state to legalize it in their respective states.
Quote: ZenKinGIt was always a state decision, but just like with skill gaming people were hesitant and didnt want to be the guinea pig. Like I always said, if people only understood their Constitution. There didnt even need to be a Supreme Court Decision for this. All it does is clear it up for the uneducated.
There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the federal gov't to control gambling laws. Federal statutes do NOT override the Constitution. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Just because there is a statute on the books doesn't mean you have to follow it if it's unconstitutional, that's what people dont understand. Since there is nothing in the Constitution regarding regulating gambling, it is reserved to the states per the 10th amendment and is and always has been a state's rights issue and up to the state to legalize it in their respective states.
This is categorically false. You have literally no idea what you're talking about. It was most certainly not a state decision until today.
One involved a bored office worker who played an online slot machine for the first time and won $194,000.00 on his first spin, the other was some similarly large prize. These two incidents happened to each involve the Golden Nugget's online gambling sites (different web locations and corporate entities).
Boom? Well, maybe its selection bias but I keep reading of job fairs and training schools in the gambling industry but sure don't see such things happening in other industries. So these things can only help, not hurt.
Once restrictive laws are removed sharp firms are already poised to dive in to an opportunity.
Quote: ZenKinGIt was always a state decision, but just like with skill gaming people were hesitant and didnt want to be the guinea pig. Like I always said, if people only understood their Constitution. There didnt even need to be a Supreme Court Decision for this. All it does is clear it up for the uneducated.
There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the federal gov't to control gambling laws. Federal statutes do NOT override the Constitution. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Just because there is a statute on the books doesn't mean you have to follow it if it's unconstitutional, that's what people dont understand. Since there is nothing in the Constitution regarding regulating gambling, it is reserved to the states per the 10th amendment and is and always has been a state's rights issue and up to the state to legalize it in their respective states.
That answer would get 0 points on any state bar exam. The federal government has the power to regulate almost any business activity through the Commerce Clause, and the 10th Amendment is a truism with almost no effective meaning.
Quote: ZenKinGTime to buy real estate in Atlantic City. Thank me in 5-10 years.
Not just because of the sports betting legalization, but the Hard Rock now opening up and maybe more casinos and entertainment to come. Might be a resurgence in a town that used to be a tourist icon because of the combination of the beach and the casinos.
Maybe the Hard Rock high executives knew this was coming behind the scenes and maybe more potential to come.
Once again advice you are not willing to put your own money behind. Some cheap condos in the Atlantic Palace if you are interested.
But why does someone who doesn’t care about money act so concerned with showing others how to make it?
You are definitely an enigma.
Quote: ahiromuNow to see which states decide to abuse their residents and adopt something similar to what Delaware has/had (underpaying parlays, no straight bets). And which states keep it in person only vs online.
I was thinking the same thing. NY will likely charge some 'nominal fee' per bet.
Quote: SOOPOOI was thinking the same thing. NY will likely charge some 'nominal fee' per bet.
My guess is that states from New England to Delaware will be forced to lower taxes because of local competition. Such as -120 in NY may not last if NJ is able to offer -110. Feels like it could be another 6-5 situation though.
Regardless, I'm convinced this will be a boon for horse racing.
Quote: ahiromuNow to see which states decide to abuse their residents and adopt something similar to what Delaware has/had (underpaying parlays, no straight bets). And which states keep it in person only vs online.
This was my first thought and concern... If they follow the Delaware Lottery footprint allowing only parlays and teasers (i dont believe they were true odds or lines to make matters worse), then I have much less interest.
I would like to see NCAA sports improve their reporting of player injuries prior to games.
The issue to pay attention to is the terms and conditions under which states authorize sports books.
- KY has proposed a state tax that is a percentage (10%?) of every bet. If states pull that kind of crap then online and Vegas sports books will continue to flourish
My prediction is many states will stand back and tax and regulate the sports books, as in Nevada. Decisions about juice will be left to the operators. What I will hate to see is the professional sports leagues demanding huge "integrity fees."
Quote: gordonm888One legal analyst says that 32 states are likely to have some form of sports betting within 5 years. I imagine that Southeastern states will be among the 18 that don't.
I would liek to see NCAA sports improve their reporting of player injuries prior to games.
The issue to pay attention to is the terms and conditions under which states authorize sports books.
- KY has proposed a state tax that is a percentage (10%?) of every bet. If states pull that kind of crap then online and Vegas sports books will continue to fluorish
It looks like Mississippi will be one of the first, planning to be ready before the end of June.
Quote: WizardAlthough this will be bad for my home state, I applaud the decision. Never did get the logic behind giving Nevada a monopoly on that industry.
Serious question--will it really matter much? Main way I can see it hurting is that it means there will be far less need for runners hanging around the books with hidden Bluetooth ear pieces taking call-ins from other states. I don't imagine many people come just to sports bet. Or do they?
Quote: SM777It looks like Mississippi will be one of the first, planning to be ready before the end of June.
Unless the state adds new regulations, NJ will be running in time for the NBA finals (2 weeks from now).
Quote: ZenKinGWrong. The federal govt has no say in this per the 10th amendment and this was long overdue since this is a states rights issue. You are right though, it is now up to each state to decide whether or not they will allow it.
Six Supreme Court justices signed an opinion saying Congress has every right to regulate sports gambling in the states; it's pretty much the last thing Alito mentions in the majority opinion. I think it would come down to a question of, just what regulations cross the line?
For example, I have asked my Representative to consider a bill that would not allow sports wagering on high school (or younger) sports, or on sporting events restricted to a particular age group, like the Little League World Series - both of which are already banned in Nevada (Gaming Regulation 22.120(1)(a)). On the other hand, would a "regulation" that limited legal sports betting to animal (i.e. horse / greyhound / mule) racing hold muster, or is that overreaching?
Quote: SM777This is categorically false. You have literally no idea what you're talking about. It was most certainly not a state decision until today.
This forum protects people that can say anything, no matter how wrong it is.
If you call someone an idiot for making up things, you get suspended. This is not limited to this forum. For some reason, everyone's voices have to be respected now. Not sure why.
Quote: UP84That answer would get 0 points on any state bar exam. The federal government has the power to regulate almost any business activity through the Commerce Clause, and the 10th Amendment is a truism with almost no effective meaning.
Ahh the great Commerce Clause, i had a feeling this is what the fed govt would try to elongate to try and over-expand their powers to control the states, such as in thid example. It's the same thing with the General Welfare Clause. These two clauses are what the federal govt tries to use to override the constitution.
But if they had the power to regulate sports gambling why was it struck down today as unconstitutional? We didnt have to wait for a Supreme Court Justice to tell us that. Thats the problem of what many dont understand in this country. Just because theres a statute on the books, if its unconstitutional you dont need to obey it. People are just scared little kids to be the guinea pig and wait for the Supreme Court or a judge to confirm it. Now states have the 'green light', which they had all of this time anyway, but legislators and businesses were too scared to proceed until today.
Quote: WatchMeWinDoes anyone have insight as to what type of wagering they will allow in NJ or PA? Will it be like Vegas real wagering or like Delaware lottery parlay and teaser slips BS?
Don't know about PA. NJ is going to be real Vegas wagering.
Quote: ZenKinGBut if they had the power to regulate sports gambling why was it struck down today as unconstitutional?
The Supreme Court ruled in New York v. United States (1992) that "Congress may not commandeer the States' legislative processes by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program, but must exercise legislative authority directly upon individuals." If I am reading this right, it means that Congress can regulate things at individual level, but not at state level. The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act specifically outlawed states from authorizing sports wagering; that's what made it unconstitutional.
This is why, for example, use of marijuana is still a federal crime even in states where it is legal at the state level. The restriction isn't placed on the states, but on the individuals.
Quote: ThatDonGuyThe Supreme Court ruled in New York v. United States (1992) that "Congress may not commandeer the States' legislative processes by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program, but must exercise legislative authority directly upon individuals." If I am reading this right, it means that Congress can regulate things at individual level, but not at state level. The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act specifically outlawed states from authorizing sports wagering; that's what made it unconstitutional.
This is why, for example, use of marijuana is still a federal crime even in states where it is legal at the state level. The restriction isn't placed on the states, but on the individuals.
My reply was 'sarcastic' and not an actual question regarding the constitutionality of it. You just made my point with the 1992 case. The federal govt CANNOT tell the states what they can and cannot do if its not already specifically written in the constitution per the 10th amendment. The same goes for regulating 'individuals'. If the Constitution has something in place for that particular subject at hand, the Fed can regulate it and charge you with a crime etc, otherwise it is a state issue. No one gets a marijuana charge on a federal level, but only on the state level.
This is why I laugh at all the uneducated drones who come out on election day at these rallies to elect the president, but no one cares or worries about their state elections and who theyre electing in their respective states. And why is that? Because the media on TV where all our citizens unfortunately get their daily news only focus on the presidential election, but state elections barely get any news time, whether this is purposely done is a different story altogether, but wouldnt be surprised. The Fed might try to usurp state rights by expanding their power through the Commerce and General Welfare Clause, but as you see today, these things are actually unconstitutional once it gets in front of a Supreme Court Justice.
We as people need to educate ourselves better and do what is constitutional regardless of whether a statute is on the books. An unconstitutional statute is as good as nothing being written at all and no one is bound to obey it.
The federal govt has very few limited and enumerated powers over you and this wasnt done by chance. Our founding fathers knew having a central govt above everyone would destroy our freedom as history shows us.
Quote: ZenKinGIt was always a state decision, but just like with skill gaming people were hesitant and didnt want to be the guinea pig. Like I always said, if people only understood their Constitution. There didnt even need to be a Supreme Court Decision for this. All it does is clear it up for the uneducated.
There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the federal gov't to control gambling laws. Federal statutes do NOT override the Constitution. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Just because there is a statute on the books doesn't mean you have to follow it if it's unconstitutional, that's what people dont understand. Since there is nothing in the Constitution regarding regulating gambling, it is reserved to the states per the 10th amendment and is and always has been a state's rights issue and up to the state to legalize it in their respective states.
PSA - This post is inaccurate. If you are a forum member reading this, please don't repeat it to others as a basis for why the Supreme Court made their decision. You will look foolish to your friends.
Quote: ZenKinGThe federal govt CANNOT tell the states what they can and cannot do if its not already specifically written in the constitution per the 10th amendment. The same goes for regulating 'individuals'. If the Constitution has something in place for that particular subject at hand, the Fed can regulate it and charge you with a crime etc, otherwise it is a state issue.
Strange how six Supreme Court justices seem to think that Congress does have the right to regulate sports gambling, at least at the individual level - and Senator Hatch, among others, is using that to author a replacement for the ban, although I doubt anybody will be able to get a blanket ban as strong as the original law. And even if a state tries the "Nice law you have there - but you only have authority over interstate wagering; gambling done entirely within our state is our business and our business alone" tactic, there are ways around that as well - remember when states thought they would be able to keep the drinking age at 18?
Quote: FinsRulePSA - This post is inaccurate. If you are a forum member reading this, please don't repeat it to others as a basis for why the Supreme Court made their decision. You will look foolish to your friends.
The Supreme Court Decision today says im right. They ruled it as unconstitutional. What a coincidence. Thanks
Quote: ZenKinGThe Supreme Court Decision today says im right. They ruled it as unconstitutional. What a coincidence. Thanks
Your argument for why the Supreme Court made its decision is wrong.
Quote: FinsRuleYour argument for why the Supreme Court made its decision is wrong.
I havent read the decision yet. If the court is trying to say the fed govt can regulate gambling through the Commerce Clause or General Welfare clause, like i said, that is just the fed trying to expand their powers when they cannot and that it was unconstitutional regardless.
Quote: RSAs much as ZK's posts seem to be crazy........usually he's actually right.
A lot of it was right, but there is more to the Federal Government than the Constitution.
Quote: FinsRuleThis forum protects people that can say anything, no matter how wrong it is.
.
Actually, the constitution does that. What
you want is called fascism. "Severe social
regimentation, and forcible suppression
of opposition." Meaning you get to have
it your way at all times.
Read and understand your Constitution people. That's the only law that matters. Also dont let the Courts get away with 'interpretation' either because all of the Constitutions interpretations are written in the Federalist Papers and Madisons Notes. If a law, statute, or whatever goes against the Constitution, the law is inapplicable and should not be obeyed.
This was long overdue and it's mostly because of no one wanting to be the guinea pig even though the federal act PASPA not authorizing states to advertise or take on sports bets was completely unconstitutional from the beginning. A simple understanding of the 10th amendment and what is written in the articles and clauses of the Constitution would tell you that you didnt have to obey the PASPA federal act that was in place.
What's next in the next 5 years or so in my opinion will be the decision regarding online skill gaming. There is a federal act called the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Act, which is more or less doing the same thing PASPA is trying to do and that is to not allow states to regulate its own gaming. 38 states from my research when I was still working on the business do differentiate between skill based gaming and gambling in its state statutes, but banks and other financial institutions are hesitant to open a bank account for you because of the federal act even though the fed govt has no power to regulate it. That will soon change just like we saw today.
Quote: ahiromuNow to see which states decide to abuse their residents and adopt something similar to what Delaware has/had (underpaying parlays, no straight bets). And which states keep it in person only vs online.
Interested voters need to keep an eye the next move of the state you're in concerning this. Special interests will likely try to manipulate their new opportunity, and not in a good way. And if it's like anything else, it will be hidden or played up as positive, while it won't actually be.
Like all propositions on the ballots every year, they'll be worded to confuse most voters at the very least.
There will be a bit of a clusterfck among the first states that implement it -- which is a great opportunity for some people to earn money.
Do the states let the legislature or the voters decide what to do?
Nevada taxes profits at like 6%(?), the others will be a lot more greedy. Could make conditions a little different. How stingy each state is with the number of licenses, either by law or by fees will make a big difference in what the markets look like.
The sports leagues are going to try to get as much money as possible as they can from everyone (sportsbooks, bettors, tax payers, governments, et cetera). And when the NFL is already getting $1 billion from tax payers in our state, there is every reason to expect all the other state governments to give billions more to the leagues.
Expect high commissions. But see number one above. High commission can often make for better opportunities to earn money.
It may not eliminate illegal betting -- it may even increase it. Let's say Florida rules allow for a market that is very favorable to the players, while New York laws makes it tough on the players. What happens? Agents will be signing up players in New York to bet with Florida sportsbooks illegally, exactly the same as everyone is currently doing offshore
Nevada will be fine. Once casinos started popping up everywhere, the Strip ran away from the idea of value and reinvented itself as luxury. The city will lose visitors / revenue we get from the Super Bowl, March Madness, and the biggest fights. But we now have hockey, football, and basketball to make up for it and reinvent itself as a different type of sports town.
We've known this was coming for a while now. Much like seeing a weed dispensary even before the election, some sportsbooks already have infrastructure in place to expand across the country.
Upcoming issues: will college be allowed everywhere or just pro? In-game betting even on games played in the state? Plenty of teams are owned by conglomerates, some of which will eventually own a stake in the book makers, how will that play out? Betting ads in the stadiums? Active players advertising for sportsbooks? Nevada just recently allowed betting on MVP voting. Which state will be the fist to go into Academy Awards? And then presidential elections?
Quote: FinsRuleDon't know about PA. NJ is going to be real Vegas wagering.
The rumor I heard is that the PA legislature has a bill "on the table" that will mimic whatever NJ does. For those who have never worked with Rules of Order, "on the table" means it has been debated to a point and laid "on the table" but not acted on. This means anyone with a second can move to start debate again. A legislature is more complex than RROR, but the point is if it is on the table it is there because both sides are ready to move on it. Putting something "on the table" is both rare and dangerous.
IMHO they will mimic NJ as that is mostly what they did with table games. Back then the legislature legalized them and the gaming board mostly just copied NJ for the day to day nuts-n-bolts rules figuring why reinvent the wheel.
