Outside Topic Who could have possibly predicted this?

Outside Topic Who could have possibly predicted this? - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Who could have possibly predicted this? (/thread-25479.html)

Who could have possibly predicted this? - BostonCard - 02-19-2025

From the Journal of Obvious Research:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2830019

Quote:Findings In this time series study of US states with legalized sports betting, it was found that sportsbooks (physical or online places where individuals can place wagers on the outcomes of sporting events) have expanded from a single state to 38 states, with wagers increasing from $4.9 billion in 2017 to $121.1 billion in 2023. Pre/post analyses revealed substantial national increases in online searches for gambling addiction after Murphy v National Collegiate Athletic Association, with pronounced increases in states that introduced online sportsbooks.

RE: Who could have possibly predicted this? - Giants - 02-19-2025

(02-19-2025, 07:34 PM)BostonCard Wrote: From the Journal of Obvious Research:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2830019

Quote:Findings In this time series study of US states with legalized sports betting, it was found that sportsbooks (physical or online places where individuals can place wagers on the outcomes of sporting events) have expanded from a single state to 38 states, with wagers increasing from $4.9 billion in 2017 to $121.1 billion in 2023. Pre/post analyses revealed substantial national increases in online searches for gambling addiction after Murphy v National Collegiate Athletic Association, with pronounced increases in states that introduced online sportsbooks.

BC

Gambling is bad news. I quit gambling in 1973 and never looked back.

RE: Who could have possibly predicted this? - fullmetal - 02-19-2025

I think you could find evidence of game-rigging and match-fixing at all levels of sport tomorrow and there would still be rampant sports gambling. The cat is truly out of the bag. International crime has latched onto lower-tier tennis and soccer matches as fertile grounds for altering game outcomes and piling on the cash. And yet...the games are still played. There's too much money to be made.

RE: Who could have possibly predicted this? - Mick - 02-20-2025

(02-19-2025, 09:03 PM)Giants Wrote:
(02-19-2025, 07:34 PM)BostonCard Wrote: From the Journal of Obvious Research:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2830019

Quote:Findings In this time series study of US states with legalized sports betting, it was found that sportsbooks (physical or online places where individuals can place wagers on the outcomes of sporting events) have expanded from a single state to 38 states, with wagers increasing from $4.9 billion in 2017 to $121.1 billion in 2023. Pre/post analyses revealed substantial national increases in online searches for gambling addiction after Murphy v National Collegiate Athletic Association, with pronounced increases in states that introduced online sportsbooks.

BC

Gambling is bad news. I quit gambling in 1973 and never looked back.

My roommate in college had a father who liked to play the ponies at Santa Anita. Roomie came across a betting system produced by Stanford MBA candidates, this would be in the early 1980s. Basically, it amounted to betting the favorites to show.

Using the system, I bought the Racing Form to "shadow" bet. I picked six winners in a row, six horses that finished first.

We took the system and $100 to Bay Meadows. Pored over the Racing Form. Avoided the races and made adjustments as indicated by the system. Made $20 bets and won minimum or near-minimum bets in five of six races, which meant we were slightly down. Bet the whole amount on the favorite to show in the last race. The horse finished 4th by a nose. And I never went back.

RE: Who could have possibly predicted this? - martyup - 02-20-2025

(02-20-2025, 09:20 AM)Mick Wrote: We took the system and $100 to Bay Meadows. Pored over the Racing Form. Avoided the races and made adjustments as indicated by the system. Made $20 bets and won minimum or near-minimum bets in five of six races, which meant we were slightly down. Bet the whole amount on the favorite to show in the last race. The horse finished 4th by a nose. And I never went back.

That horse probably saved you a ton of money in the long run.

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tenor.com%2FAo32e...ipo=images]

RE: Who could have possibly predicted this? - BillBradley - 02-20-2025

We should remember though that sports betting was rampant well before it was legalized, to the tune of a ~half a trillion dollar problem. A good chunk (I don't really know how much) of the $121B is simply people moving their bets from their illegal bookies to legal sportsbooks.

At what point does the ubiquity of a vice call for it's legalization? How much tax money (which can go to the launching of other programs to help people) and other side benefits does it take to outweigh the small percentage of people who become addicted? Yes, there are lots of college kids who are betting too much. There are also lots of college kids who are drinking and smoking too much (and spending way too much time on social media). I don't know this to be true, but I think most would agree that the decisions to legalize alcohol and marijuana were good decisions. Time will tell if the same is true for the legalization of sports gambling. It could be catastrophic. But probably not.

p.s. I currently have $10 on Lexie Hull (OK, and Caitlin Clark) on the Indiana Fever to win it all at 9 to 1.

RE: Who could have possibly predicted this? - TrumpCard - 02-20-2025

Yes, I would like to see better prevention and treatment for these various forms of addiction. Ideally, we should have implemented that before we legalized all the vices and saw people experience catastrophe, but better late than never.

RE: Who could have possibly predicted this? - Goose - 02-20-2025

(02-20-2025, 11:40 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: Yes, I would like to see better prevention and treatment for these various forms of addiction. Ideally, we should have implemented that before we legalized all the vices and saw people experience catastrophe, but better late than never.

I suspect we all would. However, it must be understood that these prevention and treatment programs are far from 100% successful. From experience over many, many years we know that some percentage of the population will engage in these types of behavior. Some of them will be harmed a little, some will become addicted and harmed a lot.

We also know by experience that attempting to use law enforcement to prevent this type of behavior generally fails. It also carries with it a great risk of reducing the respect for law of any kind. Any action that over 15-20% of the population believes is "OK" generally cannot be prevented by legal means. There are just too many violators. The only thing IMO that does actually cut down on these behaviors is to modify public opinion to regard these activities as "not cool" or even anti-social. It will not eliminate these behaviors but it does greatly curtail them. Smoking is an activity that has been so mitigated. It isn't illegal, but it has definitely fallen off radically. Unfortunately we have no reliable way to make that happen for other behaviors, at least not yet.

Full disclosure: I was raised in Nevada. I don't gamble. Never was interested. Obviously know many people who do. Know even more people who made their living off of those who do.

RE: Who could have possibly predicted this? - SkiBum80 - 02-20-2025

I generally take a libertarian view towards sports gambling, and gambling in general.
But yes the corruption it can lead to is a very real bad risk.
And I think there's economic activity that can create wealth, and activity that just redistributes wealth, and gambling is surely in the latter.

RE: Who could have possibly predicted this? - M T - 02-20-2025

It isn't just the people that are spend too much money that are hurt. So are the ones around them - children, spouses, etc. And then there's the illegal acquisition of money to support the addiction. So now those hurt might include teammates.

And, then, for the price of putting fine print that isn't readable on a 50" TV, those that make money off of other's addictions can advertise to hundreds of millions, including pre-teens.

It isn't a simple problem. People clearly enjoy the rush. Certainly we sports fans enjoy the excitement of competitions. Some enhance that with gambling. Pulling the arm of a slot machine apparently fills a need for some. Some think they can make money at this, if it wasn't for some unforeseen happenstance. Where does an individual draw the line? Where does society draw the line? When government makes money from the gambling, where does it draw the line?

Gambling isn't the only addiction that pushes/pulls people into questionable actions and drains money from them.

RE: Who could have possibly predicted this? - TrumpCard - 02-20-2025

We don't have to be helpless. If nothing else, at least schools can add 1 session of a junior high health education class to address gambling addiction. But we as a society can do better than adding 1 session of a health education class. Empower coaches to talk about the issue with their teams and bring it to life by talking about the Black Sox, or Pete Rose, or Jontay Porter. Even assign sports teams to read some fictional story that touches on gambling addiction. We can integrate education about addiction into kids' curriculum in many ways. Personally, I think it's interesting to learn how the human brain works and learn to the reasons we feel a rush when we gamble even though we know it's not the best idea.

RE: Who could have possibly predicted this? - fullmetal - 02-20-2025

On the flip side of the coin, with the increased amount of money being wagered legally, the pressure to somehow rig, fix, or game the system through illegal means has just rocketed up. Imagine the cousin or relative of an athlete being pressured to talk to the athlete to do X or Y. Miss the first free throw of the game that they take or something similarly "innocuous" that might be a prop bet offered by some bookie. Same with the referees, who can really determine the flow of the game and definitely affect prop bet outcomes.

Because of the pressures that affect the integrity of the game, I think on balance that legalizing sports betting is a net negative. I very much understand the desire to regulate, destigmatize, and oversee/administer, but sports betting is a different sort of vice that can hurt way more people on both sides of this equation.

RE: Who could have possibly predicted this? - BostonCard - 02-20-2025

This story is from the UK, but my experience watching even a college sports event is not that much different. Advertising for gambling is rampant.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2025/02/17/football-betting-gambling-premier-league-bookmakers/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Quote:Anyone watching the match live on TV, even if they were too young to bet legally, could see 30 gambling messages per broadcast minute of this game.

(not sure how they measured the number of gambling messages).

We have strong first amendment protections in the US, so it may be hard to limit or regulate advertising for a legal activity. But there have been limits to what tobacco companies can advertise (they can't: https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/products-guidance-regulations/advertising-and-promotion). The rationale is that narrowly tailored restrictions that advance a substantial interest in curtailing free speech is allowed:

https://journals.law.unc.edu/firstamendmentlawreview/the-first-amendment-and-tobacco-advertisements/

I'd be curious amongst those who know more than I do about free speech whether limiting sports marketing would meet the Hudson test:

Quote:

The speech must concern lawful activity and not be misleading

The government must have a substantial interest in regulating the speech

The regulation must directly and materially advance the government’s substantial interest

The regulation must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest

For tobacco, the government's interest is clear, since as the funder of Medicare and Medicaid it has a clear interest in keeping the population healthy, including curtailment of tobacco. Are the health effects of gambling addiction enough to meet this test? Are there other substantial government interests?

BC

RE: Who could have possibly predicted this? - BostonCard - 02-20-2025

(02-20-2025, 11:56 AM)Goose Wrote:
(02-20-2025, 11:40 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: Yes, I would like to see better prevention and treatment for these various forms of addiction. Ideally, we should have implemented that before we legalized all the vices and saw people experience catastrophe, but better late than never.
I suspect we all would. However, it must be understood that these prevention and treatment programs are far from 100% successful. From experience over many, many years we know that some percentage of the population will engage in these types of behavior. Some of them will be harmed a little, some will become addicted and harmed a lot.

We also know by experience that attempting to use law enforcement to prevent this type of behavior generally fails. It also carries with it a great risk of reducing the respect for law of any kind. Any action that over 15-20% of the population believes is "OK" generally cannot be prevented by legal means. There are just too many violators. The only thing IMO that does actually cut down on these behaviors is to modify public opinion to regard these activities as "not cool" or even anti-social. It will not eliminate these behaviors but it does greatly curtail them. Smoking is an activity that has been so mitigated. It isn't illegal, but it has definitely fallen off radically. Unfortunately we have no reliable way to make that happen for other behaviors, at least not yet.

Full disclosure: I was raised in Nevada. I don't gamble. Never was interested. Obviously know many people who do. Know even more people who made their living off of those who do.

I've never quite bought the argument that just because some people might break the law means you should legalize it. From the article: Gambling increased from "$4.9 billion in 2017 to $121.1 billion in 2023.". That's a 24-fold increase. Like, yes, before you could still gamble, either illegally or by traveling to a jurisdiction where it is legal. There are lots of people who decided that the risk of getting caught or the hassle of traveling to Vegas or Atlantic City or an Indian reservation wasn't worth it. Now that you can do it on an app in a fraction of a second. Add to it the amount of marketing that gambling companies are putting into it, not to mention the inducements to get people to start (ie, we'll give you a free $20 to start), and you get a fair number of people who might never have started gambling or seriously gambling who fall into an unhealthy habit.

Unfortunately, there is a perverse incentive because the companies make most of their money from problem gamblers. So, while the majority of people might have a small wager here or there to sharpen the stakes and make the experience of watching more enjoyable are not a big deal, they are also not a moneymaker. Not sure how you fix this fundamental problem.

BC

RE: Who could have possibly predicted this? - TrumpCard - 02-20-2025

Realistically, there aren't going to be any new federal laws or regulations restricting casinos from advertising their lawfully operated sports betting business for the next 4 years. This is just a factual statement, not a normative one about whether such laws or regulations would be a good idea.

RE: Who could have possibly predicted this? - Goose - 02-20-2025

(02-20-2025, 04:39 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I've never quite bought the argument that just because some people might break the law means you should legalize it.

Neither have I. Heroin and Fentanyl are illegal and undoubtedly will continue to be. However, when a "significant" slice of society, not just "some people" believes that some particular action should be perfectly legal and flouts the law, the law ceases to be useful. We simply can't put that many people in jail. They know it and the legal system knows it. In fact, the law becomes a positive hindrance to the rule of law. If some laws can't be enforced and are flouted, why not all laws?

I suggested 15%-20% of the population believing the law was "wrong" is enough to require its abolition. One can argue about the numbers. There are cases when well less than that is enough. It really doesn't much matter what the harm of allowing people to do what was previously forbidden will be. They are going to do it anyway if the law can't be effectively enforced. In short, the law must reflect the "morality" of the society it regulates. It doesn't necessarily reflect an "optimum" behavior (assuming we could all agree what that is), but it hopefully reflects the "best" behavior possible given the state of society.

At one point the overwhelming majority of society thought casino gambling was basically "immoral". Being a bit older and coming from Nevada I encountered that value system first hand when traveling to neighboring states, particularly Utah. 49 states had laws against it. Indian gambling was the only loophole. Society was fine with that. Obviously not the case now.

RE: Who could have possibly predicted this? - TrumpCard - 02-21-2025

If I were to detail the current laws in some states that are viewed as "wrong" by at least 20% of the population, this thread would be shut down. :-)

RE: Who could have possibly predicted this? - Mick - 02-21-2025

(02-21-2025, 11:08 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: If I were to detail the current laws in some states that are viewed as "wrong" by at least 20% of the population, this thread would be shut down. :-)

It's technically illegal to detonate an atomic bomb within the city limits of California cities Chico and Napa. $500 fine for each. No doubt Putin, Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un are quaking in their boots.