Not happening.

4 is the max by football. Mississippi(Biloxi) is ready to go. It's the same casinos, minus LVS/Wynn, as Vegas, which is to say their vendor deals are all set.

Saw an interview with Tilman Fertitta on the subject of the impact of sportsbetting on casinos, inside and outside of Nevada and teams. He owns both, plus the Houston Rockets, an is highly qualified to speak on the matter.

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/05/1...ng-ruling.html

(A REALLY great analysis, btw.)

"Remember there's already a blackmarket sporting market out there, ... I hope Mark (Cuban) is right ...I get a bump on both sides, (casino and sports team.)

who's going to benefit is the regional casinos .... (explaining the relative lack of benefit to Wynn due to its Las Vegas only exposure, for which it already has baked in sportsbetting...)

"You're not going to get an integrity fee,..... (however) I can guarantee that Congress will stick their nose into this"

"The big movement will be in online ...."

His Golden Nugget NJ , Biloxi and Lake Charles casinos will benefit, his Golden Nugget Nevada properties not.

How long before gas stations are booking action for lottery-controlled parimutuel wagering?

That certainly can happen in jurisdictions where a State lottery gets the nod to run sports-betting. (Georgia ?)

Alternatively, even private operators may look to maximize locations where physical betting (versus online) may operate. Think betting kiosks, which are common outside the US in many countries.

Wawa's: a free teaser with every fillup.

Am I just naive to think that legal sports betting will just make more states willing to participate in a shared poker player pool? If 20 states add regulated sports betting, then surely those states would want poker also, right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM2K7sV-K74

Not necessarily, and don't call me Shirley.

Every book, whether offshore, agent-based PPH (pay per head aka your local bookie that lets you bet on credit), or B+M, has different limits, depending on the who the bettor/bookie/casino/sport. College sports typically have lower limits than pro sports for two reasons imo: college sports are more easily fixed and the number of games on the schedule make college sports tougher for the oddsmakers to make as precise a line on UCF vs VCU NCAAm compared to the Bills vs Cowboys NFL. A sharp bettor could answer the reasons why better than myself. I just like to donk around a little bit.

So even if regulations lowered betting limits for college sports, bettors could still use offshore and PPH books to bet as much as their wallet could afford.

Books may be more reluctant to let bettors bet big on college bball totals in particular, as "insider trading" can occur quite easily, w the coaches/players being unwitting participants.

I've heard of people who specifically recruit grad assistants or student managers (basically anyone who can attend a college bball practice that understands the game) and pay them a few k just for info, in order to exploit totals. The game isn't fixed in any way. But strategy is divulged. The handler asks the grad assistant/student manager what the team's strategy will be and if there are any publicly unknown injuries. Specifically, the handler wants to know if the team will be playing lots of zone defense (long possessions = lower point total), will be pressing a lot (fast paced, lots of fouls, quicker possessions = higher point total), and whether they will be looking to push the pace on offense, or slow it down and run more halfcourt sets and go inside, attempting fewer 3 pt FG (fewer overall possessions, fewer 3 point attempts = lower point total).

Gaining access to this info can allow even the squarest of bettors w lots of outs to place action, to make incredibly profitable plays on college bball totals - all without effecting the integrity of the game itself (though thoroughly corrupting the integrity of the wager and completely illegal).

Of course, one could still attempt to corrupt a D1 coach or player in the traditional sense, but that would be much more risky and illegal.

Kinda, imo. It should make it easier for states w online gaming infrastructure to share a player pool. Unfortunately, what everyone but self-centered poker players (I don't mean you) seems to understand is that while sports betting and casino games offer the operator the opportunity to keep the whole pie for themselves, poker only gives them a small fraction of each pot and they have to share the revenue from gambling losers w gambling winners (poker pros).

That's why I-gaming operators have moved farther and farther from poker-only offerings and instead, push the sports betting and esp the casino games, where they can keep all the profit. Online poker pros play a vital role in the online poker "ecosystem", but they are also seen as competitors for the rec players' money. Some operators (Scheinbergs) weren't as concerned w their competitors (poker pros) as other operators (Amaya/Stars) have been.

Nicely put.

1. I would add that another reason for lower limits across an array of college games is that the sheer number of games makes it harder to lay off risk from making a market balance from bettor self-selection from those games.

2. Poker operators have moved to multi-channel gaming offerings when they can do so.The marginal cost of bringing in players/deposits is basically the same across channels per $, yet gross revenue derived from services sold for those deposits is shared with winning poker players.

However, its not so much an unwillingness to share revenues with winning poker players,as it is that a multi-channel offering attracts a wider base than poker-only offerings. I suspect poker operators are more likely to add casino/sports than sports operators are to add poker these days.

I suspect that very few sportsbook operators,whether casino, lottery or otherwise, who spring to life following yesterday's ruling will be eager to bring in poker channels, just to share the fruits of their labor, expenses and marketing push with skilled poker players.

I don't forsee a poker boom spinning off of the legalization of sportsbetting on a state-by-state basis.

No offense but the state that fought this pushed and legalized ipoker before they took this to task.

well online gambling

Key question - if a lot of US states get online poker again, will they be in the world player pool? Or ring fenced like Italy and Portugal? Of course hopefully it's the world pool!

Can't see a world pool, based on the legal states right now I can see a US only pool. FeelsBadMan.

US only pool is the best pool. I mean, if you like to win money.

Regulation of commerce that crosses international borders is clearly the domain of the federal government. If you want to play against the rest of the world, arguably you should be pushing for the steps that would lead to the establishment of a federal gaming commission.

Not necessarily.

There is no Federal Discount Store Commission, yet Walmart is the dominant retail operator in markets across Latin America. There is no Federal Crappy Car Commission, yet Ford sells quite well across the world.

There is no Federal impediment to gambling operators reaching across US borders, provided that their reach is legal into the States where their customer reside. If New Jersey agreed that Stars could pool NJ customers with the rest of the world, whether for poker or sports-betting, there is no federal barrier to doing so.

It's going to be more like the dome within the dome that Pauley Shore and Stephen Baldwin wanted to create in Bio Dome.

Though, this ruling could be very good for poker specific to the ring fencing issue. California would be the state most likely to ring fence their market at the moment. If they get bogged down with sports betting the same way that they have with IPoker, then that will push back legislation years. In that time the NJ/NV/DE and eventually Pennsylvania market will have time to grow and hopefully create a single US market.

Thanks for responses all. Hopefully they will go the world route

Phil Hellmuth Sees Opportunity for Online Poker in SCOTUS Sports Betting Decision, Mark Cuban Partly Concurs

https://www.cardschat.com/news/phil-...decision-63489

Vegas Golden Knights scored an empty netter with 2 seconds left when he could have skated around to the win, to give to over bettors a win. I am quite sure he wasn't thinking of the bettors at the time.

Thanks for rubbing it in. I had under 5.5. lol

Any state that has gas stations, smoke shops and super markets as "bookies" will have piddly limits and most likely will have parlay only bets. I live a jurisdiction with that and there is no protection for shops.

Back before they severely juiced down the games the smoke shop by me had a 100 max parlay limit and the owner kept a roll hidden in drawer that was separate from float for groceries. Holding 1K for sports bets is dangerous enough. Let alone if you take bets in the thousands of dollars.

Any state that takes betting seriously will only have the live betting in secure OTB betting facilities or casinos.

I doubt in the moment he was.

Way back in 1979 at Superbowl XIII, Dallas lost the game but were celebrating on the sidelines because they beat the spread.

'...The most infamous pro football finale for oddsmakers was Super Bowl XIII. The 13th installment saw the Steelers open as 4 ½-point favorites over the Cowboys and the number dropped to 3 ½-points with early action on the Cowboys. Even though Dallas lost the game 35-31 to Pittsburgh, early bettors cashed with the 4 ½-points and Steelers backers won on the closing line. To this day, SBXIII is considered “Black Sunday” for the sportsbooks...'

http://www.vegasinsider.com/nfl/superbowl/history/