Responding to DS post, which I quoted.

To all the hypocrites that said they've documented every win to the IRS on an offshore bet kudos to you. But in reality, taxation as an extra vig is going to be a huge issue. Of course you should pay taxes, but have the masses using offshores in the past really done this? Surely not all of them. Through on online state portal or in-person state sponsored book this juice will be incredibly difficult for many to overcome.

And ESPN and radio hosts who have no real knowledge of how betting works other than to flash a line, or have the uneducated talk show hosts give their worthless opinions, they never mention juice. Various off-shore books like pinnacle (non-US) and others that US customers have access too have generally offered dime lines and below if you look in the right places.

NO MENTION of juice has been discussed anywhere that I've seen. I'd imagine there is no regulation yet, or maybe in the future of what states can cap (if there is one) lines at. Good luck trying to beat a -120 line in the long run. The $100 sunday NFL warriors won't care because they never were gonna win anyway. There will be a whole new influx of these types. And I'm not sure how much competition there will be in each state, at least initially. If they make 15 or 20 cent lines the norm then you're better off not even bothering.

I just listened to an interview with an attorney based in New Jersey and specializing in sports gambling, and he said the following:

- New Jersey should be operating within 90 days. Initially, sports betting will be restricted to casinos and racetracks, and their online services.
- Except for Pennsylvania, which has an outrageous tax under consideration, the states initially offering sports betting will tax the providers at between 6-12%. This should not move the line beyond -110. Pennsylvania will have to reconsider their onerous rate, as it will be noncompetitive with neighboring New Jersey and Delaware.
- Eleven states are expected to be operational by the end of the year.

i saw that but i am still confused

pokerheroes post shows that there is no problem but for some reason you think having more betting options constitutes more problems?

are they going go match fix different bets that are all related ? lol

do you want the governmrnt to regulate how many bets a bookie can offer now? too much stupidity in thread

cliffs of the thread so far

old.man thinks match fixing will be an issue

peopls reply saying that people on nba nfl money wont fix games since they earn a lot more from their job than they can get from betting

then the old man says he doesnt think coaches will fix games for themselvea but their fans lol

the coach apparently cares what his fans do and better yet has magical powers to see what they bet on

this **** show needs to stop

What DS was speaking of, and what I was responding too, is more nuanced than that.

guess ill need to DM an nba coach

need to work on my mind reading skills so i can find out what the problem is

"Guy on sports radio" is a blowhard or an idiot.

Take the under, easy money.

(That over-under line maybe should be 2.5, including Nevada.)

It is NOT that simple x 10.5.

(How many States offer online poker ?)

50 before it was deemed illegal.

.... and, what, a total of 3 States since then ? ....and it is federally legal for States to offer.

So, .... how does this possibly get to 10.5 States with authorized Sportsbetting in 3 mos or so ?

In many States, it is not illegal to actually play online poker. It IS illegal, per the interpretations of federal law, to FUND the accounts for playing and, as a result, the vendors generally make it such that players from the United States are precluded by the Terms of Service from playing for money online.

As to others in the thread that believe it is 'as simple as' a State passing legislation, remember that legislative bodies are not generally in session 365 days per year. In MANY States, it is a narrow window every two years. Then, when legislation IS passed, it may not take effect until a particular date unless the specific piece of legislation calls for it to take effect as soon as the Governor signs it. This is why, using my State as an example, new legislation generally takes effect on September 1st in odd-numbered years.

Because there are 20 states that have followed New Jersey's lead and passed legislation or have legislation pending supporting sports betting, awaiting the SCOTUS decision to begin enactment. In my home state of Delaware, the Governor has stated that he expects sports betting beyond the current parlay system operating already at the 3 casinos to be available by the end of June.

According to USA Today: The first wave comprises a handful of states that basically have legal mechanisms in place and were just waiting for a favorable ruling from the high court. This includes New Jersey, West Virginia, Delaware and Mississippi. The next involves a slightly larger set of states whose legislatures are still in session and have sports-betting bills pending. California, New York, Illinois and Michigan are among this group.

So I'd be happy to take the over in a big way on 2.5 states by the start of the NFL season in September.

Totally agree with this. The idea that all these states are going to hurry up and pass legislation, especially during the summer months, is not very likely. Also even if they do pass something, having it go into effect this quickly is also probably not going to happen.

That word, "nuanced", I do not think it means what you think it means.

Try "esoteric" or "fanciful" , perhaps.

I put my projected number at 2.5 precisely because of NJ and Delaware, the latter of which got badly screwed over by the courts in that case which restricted the state to parlays .... a terrible decision finally effectively overturned by yesterdays ruling.

I think the real number is 3, perhaps, counting Nev, NJ and Del. My proposition is not just legal, but a vendor actually open for wagering business. The uncertainty is that one of Del or NJ may falter in getting to market by that pretty early deadline, however tempting a goal the start of the NFL season provides.

We seem to agree that 10.5 is blowing smoke.

I live within walking distance of Monmouth Park racetrack in NJ which should be ready to place bets in a few weeks. Yeah baby!

More hopefully, you may be able to do it online or on mobile.

Good posts. In fact, one of the better unintended consequences of ultra-high salaries in the major professional sports are the diminished chances of gambling-related corruption in them. Like your example with the coach, very few athletes would risk their seven- or eight-figure annual hauls to aid some relatively paltry betting interest.

[Note: relatively low pay was the driving force behind the 1919 White Sox scandal, if Eliot Asinov's portrayal was accurate. Eddie Cicotte's $10K take from the gamblers, which is about $150K in today's dollars, matched the salary Comiskey paid him. Meanwhile, Clayton Kershaw's 2018 salary worked out to about $200K per inning.]

As someone who works in college sports (and thus is not allowed to engage in any type of gambling in a sport for which the NCAA sponsors a championship), I've often wondered what mechanisms are in place to reduce the influence of gambling there. A student-athlete – particularly one with no realistic chance of making it big as a pro – would have a greater interest in getting involved with some kind of fix than his/her pro equivalent.

For example, are their betting maximums for college sports? Or maybe that's something that could be instituted as more and more jurisdictions adopt legal sports gambling?

[See also Boston College men's basketball, 1978-79.]

OK ..Just read this judgment and it sounds good for the States but in no way will it change the Poker Market or Landscape.There will be hight taxes to the Operator's and Caps in betting ($) so the Gambling Market will be ****ty/full of regulations the will make little sense or no sense at all.Think the Prohibition period ;-)

Nah get me to the sports book bar with alcohol in my system, chicks boobs in my face, and cold hard cash in hand!

Love Vegas sportsbooks during big events

Maybe I just don't understand some of the arguments behind the idea that legalized sports betting could make players/coaches (especially in college where the players dont get a salary) want to fix games. Even though sports betting is not really legal outside of Nevada, don't we think that is enough as of right now? Or what about the offshore sportsbooks that take 10's, maybe 100's of billions in bets every year? If there was some nefarious person out there wanting to fix a game, they could and would be doing it now. Are we really to believe that there are people out there that would put 10's of thousands of dollars on a game, but don't right now because they would have to do it in Vegas? So if it is happening, it is happening now. I just don't see why it would dramatically increase. It isn't like someone is going to get a player to point shave to ensure they win their $500 bet.

betting on sports has never been a big deal.is poker a sport?

The states have no particular interest in making it so that it is possible to be a professional sports gambler. Arguably, they'd like it if the vig/taxes were such that it is on the border of being impossible to be more than a small winner in the long run so that gambling is purely recreational.

They should want a restriction on interstate online wagering without an interstate compact, so that bettors can't shop for better lines on other sites. Constitutionally, it should be the province of the federal government to regulate any betting that crosses state lines.

its only one person with dementia making this argument

he also thinks he will be the person to solve this big issue while beinv contracted by the government..

Carry on.

I wonder if Vegas hotel are second guessing their decision of higher resort fees and paid parking in light of this news.