And it looks like Orrin Hatch has already started the process:

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...-supreme-court

Hopefully there won't be enough bribe money to get enough senators and congressman to get any bill passed in the utterely corrupt cesspool known as Washington DC.

They've had legalized sports betting in the UK and Ireland (among other places) for quite some time, and this hasn't really become an issue. Hopefully it won't be seen as one here other than some disgruntled gamblers (many of whom will find something to blame their losses on regardless).

I have been on both sides of some hard to understand end game decisions. lol

They bet on sports that involve large pointspreads?

Some. For example, cricket is a popular overseas betting sport that has hundreds of runs scored per game where you regularly see large spreads.

There are opening lines, line changes during the week, and closing lines. Different bookies also offer different lines for the same game. Bookies also offer buying/selling half points, full points, etc. There are also 6 point teasers, 7 point teasers, 10 point teasers, etc. There are also first half lines, 2nd half lines, quarter lines, etc.

Essentially there is a consequence for any possible outcome.

Does legalized sports betting result in some poker fish spending more of their gambling money on sports instead of poker? How many local bookies will no longer be able to play poker because legal sports betting bites into their income?

How do the feds ban sports betting sans Nevada?

That was exactly what PASPA tried to do, and it was thrown out.

Prior to 1976 Feds used to have a 2.5% tax on all sports wagers, so they could do something like that. But it would need to apply to ALL states, i.e. not exclude NV.

No mystery Hatch was the author of PASPA.

What if you capped the size of wagers so that it would be very difficult to place a bet large enough to justify the bribes necessary to manipulate the outcome?

That's never going to happen. There are many decisions on why you take a knee. Sometimes it's for the safety of the players, other times it's not to run up the score. Betting will never determine how a game is played or the sport might as well become wrestling.

The player would probably get more pub $ from exposing the "fix" than what he was paid for the "fix".

NFL (and many D1) coaches get paid millions. What coach is going to accept a bribe to fix a game that, if exposed, would terminate his career and subject him to a long time in prison?

I can see small D1 coaches who *might* be tempted, but the risk is probably far too great. Additionally books can identify betting patterns that expose these fixes (e.g. Arizona St.) so the days of a "Black Sox" fix of huge proportions are long in the past.

I can see asst. coaches and players betting thru beards to lower their exposure, but their "edge" would probably be slight and most of it would probably be of the compulsive variety (which the books would gladly accept).

Mr. Sklansky, with all due respect, for such an accomplished gambler and intelligent person, I am a little surprised at what I perceive to be a lack of understanding of the way coaches and teams operate, strategically.

99% of coaches take the knee, bc all NCAA D1/NFL coaches care about is winning the game. They may know the spread, but it doesn't factor into their pre-game or in-game decisions in the slightest. The 1% that runs it up does so bc it's part of their team's ethos as a "buttkicker" - such as the Chip Kelly-coached Oregon Ducks going for 2 after their first TD (to intimidate the other teams) and other teams throwing until the end of a blowout to boost the chances of their QB winning the Heisman or to please pollsters.

What is the upside for a team up by 6 to score another td, when all they have to do is go V Formation and guarantee the win? If a coach did try to score in that spot, it would be extremely unorthodox. But they never do. This is not an iffy situation.

As always, the first and foremost concern in the 'game integrity' dept is that no D1 football and bball players or officials in any event that is bet on can be corrupted. D1 football and bball players bc those are the only college sports bet on that I'm aware of and bc those are the players most vulnerable to corruption. They may never have a chance to play professionally, so their chance to make money is in college, by accepting money to throw a game. Pro players make too much for a syndicate to approach them w worthwhile money for both parties to make (though having more outs to place action w a national betting make throwing a game command a higher price than if your outs are limited to Vegas and off shore).

wrt officials, just look at the Tim Donaghy situation and any variation of that could occur. Every now and then, there may be a Pete Rose type of situation w a pro manager/coach. Individual sports where middle and lower tier pros don't make much, like MMA, boxing, and tennis, have always been susceptible.

Nothing will really change in terms of the logistics of dealing w game integrity and gambling. The stakes will just be higher, as more and more places allow legalized sports betting.

This has been a long time coming and I hope it has a positive impact on US poker regulation. But there's just so much more revenue generated by sports betting than there could ever be from poker rake and that's why sports betting got unbanned imo, while states will continue to ring-fence US regulated poker for another 5-10 years until it gets federally regulated.

If you go the lottery way makes sense to introduce pari mutual betting and not worry about anything but raking your money off the top

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS REGARDING LEGALIZED SPORTS BETTING IN THE UNITED STATES

https://www.covers.com/Editorial/Art...SA-sportsbooks

Perhaps they can model the Kentucky Derby futures pools for straight bets and popular parlays. Derivatives might become a bit unwieldy.

People are misunderstanding me. I am not suggesting a coach would try to "fix" a game to win a bet. But he might be thinking of his fan's bets or at least people might suspect that he is. And yes that is probably already happening. But the announcers haven't been bringing up the subject. This will probably change if legalized betting becomes widespread.

And every once in a while situations will come up where a decision is of little importance except as to how it changes bettor's outcomes. When it happens nowadays few viewers of a game even realize it and the bettors on the losing end tend to swallow it. But if announcers start second guessing decisions that affect pointspread outcomes it would be better if some rules were in place to avoid most of those situations.

(Also, my comments obviously only pertain to those games where it is clear which side wins in spite of the line movements that may have occurred.)

Tom Osborne was famous for leaving the starters in and running up the score to cover the spread. Vegas caught on fairly quickly.

And again, there are so many markets on a single game there is a bet hanging on any conceivable outcome.

I can think of one recent example: during the NCAA tourney, the Florida St. coach was challenged by the media for not fouling when his time was down 4 w like 15 secs to go iirc.

Had his players fouled, Florida St. would've lost by more than 4 maybe 70%, lost by less than 4 maybe 25%, and won or gotten to OT maybe 5%. By choosing to not foul, he ensured his team was 0% to win. The spread was 4. So the media challenged him for seemingly giving up when there was no reason to and the sports talk radio pundits that have to talk for hours about something every day, brought up the fact that the spread was 4 and lightly speculated on some conspiracy theories. What is the chance a coach making 7 figs/yr would alter his strategy to ensure his team pushed instead of likely losing ATS? I would say close to zero.

When the temptations are great, such as when a senior CB for Alabama-Birmingham, who might realize he has no chance to make the NFL, is approached by a syndicate and offered 50k to give up a few easy passing touchdowns, there needs to be great scrutiny. But these are the same temptations that have already been around. The only effect I can see a nationwide sports betting apparatus having in these scenarios, is by raising the bribe amounts, due to a corrupting syndicate maybe having more places to get action down in different states.

I'm curious what rule changes could be put into place that would specifically deal w game integrity. Crazy as it may sound, game integrity in big money sports might be easier to police (or at least better policed) than unregulated poker sites like ACR

Gambling and bets on games should have NO influence on an outcome of a play or game whatsoever in professional sports. There is enough corruption already (see tennis, soccer, boxing, figure skating). The mere suggestion that any wagering on sports should subsequently garner the creation of rules to foster it is a perpostrious notion and I take offence to it as a sports fan

Not quite true

There has been a decent amount of corruption in soccer games in various countries, cricket and lower level tennis.

The upside is they will continue to get illegal payments funneled to their players from the alumni betting on the game......

A Guy on sports talk radio. says the line for number of states by week 1 of upcoming NFL season was 10.5 and he would take the over. Many states it's simple as over turning a law made by state legislature

herein lies the "problem" then if you factor in line moves and teasers, it becomes a nightmare to attempt to legislate this.

legislate what?

what problem are you talking about?