Question on Sweepstakes/Fantasy Sports models. (?)

[tangled]

The question is, on either of these models, can a provider limit the number of entries? I know a provider can't require a certain number of entries, but, again, can they limit the number?

I, of course, have a reason for asking, but I don't want to get ahead of myself. I have tried to look this up for Fantasy Sports, but haven't found anything, so I am asking here.

Thanks.

[VP$IP]

yes they can

for example ...

Limit (1) one entry per email address, per household, per day

http://www.lfirm.com/CM/MarketingLaw...Law-Basics.asp

[spacegod]

^^^ I read OP's question as fixed number of entries per game or event, not per individual. E.g., fantasy sports "SNG" capped at 100 players.

[repulse]

I think the answer is no? I'm not certain. I know we discussed possible ways to fit online poker into a sweepstakes model on this forum a few years ago, and I think we determined there that the number of entrants had to be uncapped, but that thread is gone in the recent purge of old threads.

(P.S. Are there archives for these threads somewhere? The forum archives link in the sidebar is only 2007 and prior.)

[tangled]

Originally Posted by spacegod

^^^ I read OP's question as fixed number of entries per game or event, not per individual. E.g., fantasy sports "SNG" capped at 100 players.

Yes, this is what I am asking. I don't play Fantasy Sports, but it seems to me they have leagues that mimic the NFL etc., and therefore might cap the number of players.

[tangled]

Originally Posted by repulse

I think the answer is no? I'm not certain. I know we discussed possible ways to fit online poker into a sweepstakes model on this forum a few years ago, and I think we determined there that the number of entrants had to be uncapped, but that thread is gone in the recent purge of old threads.

(P.S. Are there archives for these threads somewhere? The forum archives link in the sidebar is only 2007 and prior.)

Sigh, I guess there truly is nothing new under the sun.

If these models are uncapped, is that by law or by convention? I believe there are daily fantasy sports leagues now, and I think that is new, and not what the UIGEA really had in mind, so I guess it is good to ask again.

Moreover, the idea would not be to uncap willy nilly, but as a function of a well-established Ipoker experience, the SnG, or possibly, really thinking outside the box, as a function of the limitations of the 52-card deck.


Another new thing, (I thought was new, but maybe not), was to manipulate access to multi-tabling enhancement software as a way to discourage advantage players from trying to exploit the "free-entry" in the sweepstakes model. In other words, aid in no way, any free player who wants to multi-table. But offer sophisticated software to those that do pay.

[repulse]

Originally Posted by tangled

Sigh, I guess there truly is nothing new under the sun.

If these models are uncapped, is that by law or by convention? I believe there are daily fantasy sports leagues now, and I think that is new, and not what the UIGEA really had in mind, so I guess it is good to ask again.

Moreover, the idea would not be to uncap willy nilly, but as a function of a well-established Ipoker experience, the SnG, or possibly, really thinking outside the box, as a function of the limitations of the 52-card deck.


Another new thing, (I thought was new, but maybe not), was to manipulate access to multi-tabling enhancement software as a way to discourage advantage players from trying to exploit the "free-entry" in the sweepstakes model. In other words, aid in no way, any free player who wants to multi-table. But offer sophisticated software to those that do pay.

My best recollection is that the cap is by law when it comes to sweepstakes law, and that any inherent limitation in the game (such as a creative constraint based on # of cards in a poker deck) would put that game outside of the realm of sweepstakes.

I definitely recall, in the older discussion, that there was no legal sweepstakes way to provide any advantages or disadvantages between those choosing the free-entry option and those who paid to enter. My original thought was that a poker tournament, i.e. the Sunday Million, could have a "no purchase necessary" option where you could register for free and just get a very small starting stack, or you could just always have a "no purchase necessary" freeroll megasatellite that awarded one seat to the event, but apparently that can't be consistent with sweepstakes laws. Those who enter with the "no purchase necessary" option need to have the same chance of winning as everyone else, basically.

That being said, I haven't been following any of these fantasy sports sites and how they're operating. My understanding is that they aren't running as sweepstakes (they don't have "no purchase necessary" entry options, right?), but rather as skilled competitions with fixed entry fees that evade any legal definitions of gambling through their carveout/classification. Skill game tournaments with entry costs and prizes operate online in a way not completely identical to traditional sweepstakes; in particular, entrants can be capped to run a SNG-type event in whatever the game is, and there need not be "no purchase necessary" options. So that's probably what the fantasy sites are doing.

Now if only poker were in the same class of games as backgammon, bridge, Magic: the Gathering, etc!

[Skallagrim]

Originally Posted by repulse

My best recollection is that the cap is by law when it comes to sweepstakes law, and that any inherent limitation in the game (such as a creative constraint based on # of cards in a poker deck) would put that game outside of the realm of sweepstakes.

I definitely recall, in the older discussion, that there was no legal sweepstakes way to provide any advantages or disadvantages between those choosing the free-entry option and those who paid to enter. My original thought was that a poker tournament, i.e. the Sunday Million, could have a "no purchase necessary" option where you could register for free and just get a very small starting stack, or you could just always have a "no purchase necessary" freeroll megasatellite that awarded one seat to the event, but apparently that can't be consistent with sweepstakes laws. Those who enter with the "no purchase necessary" option need to have the same chance of winning as everyone else, basically.

That being said, I haven't been following any of these fantasy sports sites and how they're operating. My understanding is that they aren't running as sweepstakes (they don't have "no purchase necessary" entry options, right?), but rather as skilled competitions with fixed entry fees that evade any legal definitions of gambling through their carveout/classification. Skill game tournaments with entry costs and prizes operate online in a way not completely identical to traditional sweepstakes; in particular, entrants can be capped to run a SNG-type event in whatever the game is, and there need not be "no purchase necessary" options. So that's probably what the fantasy sites are doing.

Now if only poker were in the same class of games as backgammon, bridge, Magic: the Gathering, etc!

I agree almost completely.

It would be possible, IMHO, to have a "sweepstakes" based on playing a poker tournament with a fixed number of entrants. But to do so would, as you say, require that there be no favoritism as to who gets to be among the fixed number. It would have to be a random drawing or a first come/first served system where those playing for free had an equal chance to be among the first.

It ain't a legitimate sweepstakes if the person who gets entered by buying something has any advantage over the person who enters for free.

Skallagrim

[spacegod]

Must the fantasy sports model follow sweepstakes rules, or do they get carte blanche to do whatever they want with the UIGEA carve-out? Also, I wonder why a site hasn't added fantasy poker. Imagine being able to bet on poker players but not actually play poker (ughh).

[ike hax0r]

Bumping this for a technical clarification. Can a participant in a sport place wagers on said fantasy sport? For instance, could an NFL player/coach/etc. wager on NFL fantasy contests on DraftDay.com?

[tamiller866]

It’s Legit: Fantasy Sports is Legal, and DraftDay Follows the Rules.

DraftDay offers fantasy sports games in compliance with federal law. Fantasy sports games are exempted under the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act as long as three criteria are met:


All prizes and awards offered to winning participants are established and made known to the participants in advance of the game or contest and their value is not determined by the number of participants or the amount of any fees paid by participants.


All winning outcomes reflect the relative knowledge and skill of the participants and are determined predominantly by accumulated statistical results of the performance of individuals (athletes in the case of sports events) in multiple real-world sporting or other events.


No winning outcome is based:


On the score, point spread, or any performance or performances of any single real world team or any combination of such teams; or


Solely on any single performance of an individual athlete in any single real-world sporting or other event.


DraftDay follows these federal requirements for every game we offer. Unfortunately, our attorneys advised us that a handful of states (including Arizona, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Montana, Vermont, and Puerto Rico) have unclear laws or other restrictions that make the cost of doing business there too high for us. We regret we cannot accept deposits from residents of those states at this time.

Assuming that this is true (that the leagues that Draft Day offers actually follow these guidelines), and his team or personal conduct clause in his contract doesn't forbid it, then yes.

[ike hax0r]

Second question, and I'm sure this has come up before, but would wagering on players in fantasy poker be legal given that poker is considered gambling?

[Skallagrim]

Originally Posted by ike hax0r

Second question, and I'm sure this has come up before, but would wagering on players in fantasy poker be legal given that poker is considered gambling?

I do not think it matters here whether poker is gambling or not. The place to look for the answer is in the definition of "Fantasy Sports."

Skallagrim

[ike hax0r]

(ix) participation in any fantasy or simulation sports game or educational game or contest in which (if the game or contest involves a team or teams) no fantasy or simulation sports team is based on the current membership of an actual team that is a member of an amateur or professional sports organization (as those terms are defined in section 3701 of title 28) and that meets the following conditions:

(II) All winning outcomes reflect the relative knowledge and skill of the participants and are determined predominantly by accumulated statistical results of the performance of individuals (athletes in the case of sports events) in multiple real-world sporting or other events.

Certainly appears like poker would be fine. (II) seems like it is just another impossible-to-define piece of hasty legal drafting, just like the predominance test. Suppose there were teams of coin flippers that played against each other and streamed the matches on the internet. I suppose this would not be covered?

*I don't have a specific question, just trying to start some discussion about possible unforeseen situations or angles on fantasy sports that haven't occurred yet.

[ERGOPHOBIA]

Misuinderstood the word "model"