OT: Legalizing Sports Gambling Was a Huge Mistake (Atlantic)

[hdhntr1]

Don’t post about hazing scandals 🤣

Just another addiction

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

Just another addiction

Just like most addictions, people are the issue and they want someone else to control it for them.

 

[AdamOnFirst]

We can’t wrap society in a full body condom.

My favorites are all the “I liked gambling when it was just your local neighborhood thumb breaking illegal bookie, but now that it’s a legal and above board entertainment enterprise I’m not so sure”

Goes to show people don’t actually think rationally about things, they just view something as seedy or untoward and therefore should be illegal. But only a LITTLE seedy so should be tolerated on the black market. No actual rational thought, just vibes.

 

[Hungry Jack]

My favorites are all the “I liked gambling when it was just your local neighborhood thumb breaking illegal bookie, but now that it’s a legal and above board entertainment enterprise I’m not so sure”

Goes to show people don’t actually think rationally about things, they just view something as seedy or untoward and therefore should be illegal. But only a LITTLE seedy so should be tolerated on the black market. No actual rational thought, just vibes.

That's Progressivism in a nutshell: good vibes and good intentions, followed by craptastic ineffectual policy that just makes things worse.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

That's Progressivism in a nutshell: good vibes and good intentions, followed by craptastic ineffectual policy that just makes things worse.

Don’t worry I have been told my life will suddenly be much much better after November if this year.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Goes to show people don’t actually think rationally about things, they just view something as seedy or untoward and therefore should be illegal.

Isn't that rational?
You may not agree with the thought process, but it is completely logical.

When big money swoops in to profit from human weakness, there will definitely be casualties. Not advocating either way, but governments should step in when the societal impact is too negative.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

Isn't that rational?
You may not agree with the thought process, but it is completely logical.

When big money swoops in to profit from human weakness, there will definitely be casualties. Not advocating either way, but governments should step in when the societal impact is too negative.

The government does the exact opposite. They promote gambling with Lotteries in nearly every state and Nationally. What people should be irritated with is the government use of the revenues gained by gambling. We were told our taxes would decrease with the influx of revenue, our schools would get better, the infrastructure would approve. There are insane taxes on things that are considered negative to society, tobacco, liquor, etc. As Roger Waters would say, “Mother should I trust the government “.

 

[NUCat320]

Goes to show people don’t actually think rationally about things, they just view something as seedy or untoward and therefore should be illegal. But only a LITTLE seedy so should be tolerated on the black market. No actual rational thought, just vibes.

I think the point is that it’s not just ‘vibes’.

It’s usability professionals and market researchers and ad agencies and leagues and teams maximizing the dopamine kick of placing a bet so that customers maximize losses.

When you went to Vegas to lose, or when you worried about whether Big Johnny’s toughs were gonna break your freakin’ legs, there was friction in the process that made it tough to lose a lot. That friction is being reduced every day.

It’s okay if you simply believe that an increase in bankruptcies and domestic violence is fine, whatever, screw the weak-willed and those that live with them, but the real actual data that the article reports on shows that it’s not ‘vibes’.

That's Progressivism in a nutshell: good vibes and good intentions, followed by craptastic ineffectual policy that just makes things worse.

The point is that there is no policy right now. The policy was “take off the guardrails.” It’s reasonable, less then a decade in, to determine whether policy is necessary.

 

[TheC]

So, I guess we can't possibly discuss a societal topic that relates to sports in a nuanced and mature way without some idiot having to bring politics into it. Too bad... it was interesting to hear the different takes on this question.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

So, I guess we can't possibly discuss a societal topic that relates to sports in a nuanced and mature way without some idiot having to bring politics into it. Too bad... it was interesting to hear the different takes on this question.

Well the whole concept being proposed by some is aligned with regulation of the industry. Government is the regulator. I am not sure how you discuss the topic without bringing in the government enforcement and ability to regulate which on other “sin” topics have been less than successful.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

The government does the exact opposite. They promote gambling with Lotteries in nearly every state and Nationally. What people should be irritated with is the government use of the revenues gained by gambling. We were told our taxes would decrease with the influx of revenue, our schools would get better, the infrastructure would approve. There are insane taxes on things that are considered negative to society, tobacco, liquor, etc. As Roger Waters would say, “Mother should I trust the government “.

I don't think of the lotteries as gambling per se - it obviously isn't "sports wagering" - but your complaints are valid.
State-run lotteries are essentially a tax on ignorance most of the time.

The main problem with our system of government is that no one is incentivized to be fiscally responsible.
In fact, politicians are incentivized to be fiscally irresponsible.

 

[TheC]

Well the whole concept being proposed by some is aligned with regulation of the industry. Government is the regulator. I am not sure how you discuss the topic without bringing in the government enforcement and ability to regulate which on other “sin” topics have been less than successful.

Yes, government has a role in the conversation, but it is possible to talk about government without juvenile, and quite ignorant generalizations about political philosophies and snarky comments about the upcoming election. That is when government crosses into politics, complete with the same tone and disrespect that makes people generally hate talking about politics.

 

[TheC]

I don't think of the lotteries as gambling per se - it obviously isn't "sports wagering" - but your complaints are valid.
State-run lotteries are essentially a tax on ignorance most of the time.

The main problem with our system of government is that no one is incentivized to be fiscally responsible.
In fact, politicians are incentivized to be fiscally irresponsible.

Let's make sure we're clear. Government is often incentivized (or better yet, forced) to be fiscally responsible. I have a government job and I absolutely can't spend past my budget. However, you are right that politicians aren't necessarily incentivized to be fiscally responsible.

I've often said that we have a terrible system where we allow our government to be run by politicians, but I can't think of a better way to do it.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Let's make sure we're clear. Government is often incentivized (or better yet, forced) to be fiscally responsible. I have a government job and I absolutely can't spend past my budget. However, you are right that politicians aren't necessarily incentivized to be fiscally responsible.

I've often said that we have a terrible system where we allow our government to be run by politicians, but I can't think of a better way to do it.

Your clarifications are correct. I was writing about legislators and executive branch - the politicians.
It is probably heresy to some, but we need more than two political parties.
Instead we're saddled with entrenched extremists on both sides who prioritize their uncompromising agendas (and themselves) ahead of the nation.

The first flaw to correct is to allocate the federal House of Representatives based on percentage of the vote for each party in each state.
This would enable minor political parties to establish a foothold in the largest states and go from there.
Of course, the two existing parties will never allow it - as the money pours in and they enrich themselves fighting the same stupid battles eternally, backed almost entirely by corporations and wealthy donors.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

Let's make sure we're clear. Government is often incentivized (or better yet, forced) to be fiscally responsible. I have a government job and I absolutely can't spend past my budget. However, you are right that politicians aren't necessarily incentivized to be fiscally responsible.

I've often said that we have a terrible system where we allow our government to be run by politicians, but I can't think of a better way to do it.

It’s very clear which side of the political spectrum pretty much every frequent poster lies on. So, this scope creep you talk about happens all the time. When I see people complain about the “ignorant” or “snarky” comments it is always misaligned with the complainers beliefs. Hardly a surprise. The political system has worked pretty well in this country up until the last couple of decades. Now it is about winning and towing the party line even if that isn’t what the people want. There are so many lies from all sides and promises that will never be kept that it nauseates a bunch of people. Hence, don’t like to talk about it.

Career politicians are rarely a good thing, but this countries best and brightest would never subject themselves to the scrutiny and abuse that comes with being a public figure. The political commercials make me sick, but I hope people in this board are smart enough to make their own opinions without being influenced by you or me.

 

[AdamOnFirst]

That's Progressivism in a nutshell: good vibes and good intentions, followed by craptastic ineffectual policy that just makes things worse.

I don't disagree with that statement personally, but I will point out that this PARTICULAR issue doesn't much follow a standard left-right divide and you will find plenty of small-c-conservative change averse pearl clutchers in both parties on this particular issue.

That at hardball politics. We have a decent number of Republicans in MN who religiously oppose gambling and a decent number of Dems who oppose it based on what you're describing, but the big reason is the native tribes have a permanent gambling monopoly and are decisively powerful Dem funders. They haven't been able to iron out a final structure they like yet, so it's blocked cold. Very very close for a couple years now after a few years of hard opposition though.

 

[TheC]

Your clarifications are correct. I was writing about legislators and executive branch - the politicians.
It is probably heresy to some, but we need more than two political parties.
Instead we're saddled with entrenched extremists on both sides who prioritize their uncompromising agendas (and themselves) ahead of the nation.

The first flaw to correct is to allocate the federal House of Representatives based on percentage of the vote for each party in each state.
This would enable minor political parties to establish a foothold in the largest states and go from there.
Of course, the two existing parties will never allow it - as the money pours in and they enrich themselves fighting the same stupid battles eternally, backed almost entirely by corporations and wealthy donors.

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on this. While there are things about the two party system that are maddening, I also see other countries with multiple parties forming coalitions once elected. In a sense, you could argue that our system just forces them to build their coalitions before the election. But again, I would be open to hearing arguments for changing our two-party system.

 

[Hungry Jack]

I don't disagree with that statement personally, but I will point out that this PARTICULAR issue doesn't much follow a standard left-right divide and you will find plenty of small-c-conservative change averse pearl clutchers in both parties on this particular issue.

That at hardball politics. We have a decent number of Republicans in MN who religiously oppose gambling and a decent number of Dems who oppose it based on what you're describing, but the big reason is the native tribes have a permanent gambling monopoly and are decisively powerful Dem funders. They haven't been able to iron out a final structure they like yet, so it's blocked cold. Very very close for a couple years now after a few years of hard opposition though.

Gambling is a source of revenue for state governments, and money has only one color.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

Gambling is a source of revenue for state governments, and money has only one color.

Speaking of Gambling, Charlie Hustle should be in the HOF

 

[NUCat320]

Speaking of Gambling, Charlie Hustle should be in the HOF

Perhaps FanDuel can sponsor the moment of silence at ballparks tomorrow.

(Shouldn’t lack of personal responsibility or self-control be penalized, particularly when it pertains to the one rule posted in every single clubhouse?)


I wish @AdamOnFirst had responded to my very clear explanation that the discussion is *not* actually about vibes.


I also wish @Hungry Jack had responded to my statement that the current situation has nothing to do with ‘Progressivism’, being that there’s no current “craptastic ineffectual” policy in place. Perhaps good policy is worth a shot here?

Oh well. 😢

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Speaking of Gambling, Charlie Hustle should be in the HOF

He's an interesting case.

John Dowd did the 1989 MLB investigation...

"There were documents submitted to Dowd that included detailed evidence of bets placed by Rose. In his depositions, Rose denied ever betting on baseball and blasted those who claimed otherwise... Dowd said he found Janszen's testimony to be "worthy of belief" when it was paired with matching testimony of others, betting sheets, Jaszens' records and other recorded phone records and conversations."

(In other words, they had Rose dead to rights and he simply denied all the evidence against him.)

"On Aug. 24, 1989, Rose officially signed an agreement with Giamatti declaring him permanently ineligible from baseball. In exchange, there was no formal declaration made whether Rose bet on baseball."

"It wasn't until years later, in his 2004 book, "My Prison Without Bars," that Rose would admit he bet not only on baseball, but on the Reds."

In 2015 a notebook of Rose's bets previously seized in an FBI raid became public, showing the scale and frequency of his bets. That notebook proved that Rose bet on games in which he was playing.

Under MLB Rule 21, "Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible."

Pete Rose's gambling scandal, explained: Why MLB's hits king is banned for betting on baseball | Sporting News

Rose has more hits than anyone in baseball history, and he accomplished the feat without performance-enhancing drugs. Yet he remains barred from baseball and the Hall of Fame.

www.sportingnews.com

OTL: Notebook shows Rose bet on MLB as player

New documents obtained by Outside the Lines indicate Rose bet extensively on baseball -- and on the Reds -- as he racked up the last hits of a record-smashing career in 1986.

www.espn.com

 

[Hungry Jack]

Perhaps FanDuel can sponsor the moment of silence at ballparks tomorrow.

(Shouldn’t lack of personal responsibility or self-control be penalized, particularly when it pertains to the one rule posted in every single clubhouse?)


I wish @AdamOnFirst had responded to my very clear explanation that the discussion is *not* actually about vibes.


I also wish @Hungry Jack had responded to my statement that the current situation has nothing to do with ‘Progressivism’, being that there’s no current “craptastic ineffectual” policy in place. Perhaps good policy is worth a shot here?

Oh well. 😢

Here is my policy:
1. 1-800-GAMBLER
2. Tax all winnings from gambling at the rate of short term capital gains
3. Tax all of PPD's winnings at 100% and give the proceeds to Planned Parenthood
4. Require every gambling ad to have a disclaimer: "Gambling takes your money and makes you go blind."

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Here is my policy:
1. 1-800-GAMBLER
2. Tax all winnings from gambling at the rate of short term capital gains
3. Tax all of PPD's winnings at 100% and give the proceeds to Planned Parenthood
4. Require every gambling ad to have a disclaimer: "Gambling takes your money and makes you go blind."

Sounds like a good start.

Seriously, though, I don't have a gambling account other than for horse racing.
I know how that account handles taxation. (The states take it out of every winning bet)
I'm curious how the sports betting sites handle taxes.
Because they should definitely be looking at all settled bets for a given year and reporting short term gain/loss to IRS.