Topic: What Would a Nation of Sports Gamblers Look Like? (Read 616 times)

Legalisation of online casino was the easy one for the government. Because by passing the law , it was the easy one. The offline casino will affected,if the government legalised the online casino. So the offline casino people will not allow this to occur. It’s common one in all the business. The Offline casino running people will be more powerful person of their country. So their influence was made effective as compared to online casino. So this type of activity can’t be changed at any circumstances. Only solution is both can earn by not interfering other business.

Legalization is good for the government but for the existing offline business sharks its not going to be so they will push the government with all their influence to stop legalization. Making the online gamble will not affect the existing casino business for sure but still the empire they build for decades will not be upright but with the evolution its not possible to suppress for too long.

Actually, they can do nothing to stop online betting. It's like piracy, there can be laws forbidding and punishing the practice, but most people will still go for it, doesn't matter what regulators say. And in fact, who should choose what kind of gambling is better (virtual or physical) are the customers, so casinos' owners (including the tribes) adapt themselves to what customers are demanding. It never works on the contrary in business and service provider to customer's relationship.

I'm sure they are all going to work together on the solution which provides online gambling and sports betting to the community. After all, it's the only alternative anyway.

Maybe in the past it was possible for online casinos to grow without having license or legalized by the government but nowadays it's not possible almost all the reputed casinos have licence and if new members are looking for a new casino they always check for the licence and feedback from the existing users so if a new casino want to grow and survie along the huge competition then they need to tick all the boxes.

Some online casinos don't focus on legalization but their main goal is to earn and make their business grow even without any connection with the government. But for offline casinos, they always need the approval of the government for them to continue their operation.
If a city would be filled with sports gamblers, it will help the economy through their taxes which is beneficial for both parties. However, it's still important that people would still know their limits when it comes to gambling.

Legalization is good for the government but for the existing offline business sharks its not going to be so they will push the government with all their influence to stop legalization. Making the online gamble will not affect the existing casino business for sure but still the empire they build for decades will not be upright but with the evolution, it's not possible to suppress for too long.

We will know very soon here in the United States.  My state, Illinois, legalized gambling about a year ago. Honestly besides the extra tax income which is great and put to good use (well, some of it) not much has changed here.  There are a shit ton of video poker machines stores allllll over my city, I live in a city of 100k-ish people and I bet we have poker machines set up in at least 4-500 different establishments.

I mostly support the freedom of will.  It's super duper easy to gamble online illegally so why not legalize it and make tax money for the betterment of the city. 

Like marijuana legalization here, gambling legalization has made it a better, more free place.

I understand that if we wanted a country where it was for gamblers it would be necessary to put strong measures of KYC, the solution to many problems of gambling addicts is in KYC, for example:

the country would force all online or physical casinos to force customers to make KYC right away when creating an account in the case of an online casino and in the case of a physical casino they would have to ask customers for documents at the door of the physical casino

in case someone becomes addicted to gambling that person would have to be banned from gambling for at least 3 years, this means that the hospital would issue a note to all online and physical casinos forbidding and account creation of this addicted person in gambling

with that it could be possible that there was a nation of  sports gamblers

In my opinion gambling should always be legal in a country. Having a nation wide ban on gambling is wrong as it will never remove gambling complete from society. The only thing that a ban is going to do is shifting it not hiding from the government. Private underground casinos will pop up and still satisfy the demand for gambling and sports betting. The government is missing out on taxes and also will not offer a legal framework for the citizens. It should be every persons choice to decide if he wants to engage in gambling or not. And as long as it's legal a gambler doesn't need to be afraid that he will scammed out of his winnings, he has the law on his side. In my country sports betting is a big market and is part of the culture over here, if politicans would try to ban it then there would be a public outcry. As for the metaverse I think it's the future and will be a big part for people watching sports, betting and engaging with each other while sitting on the couch at home. I would only be wearing a costume in the metaverse if I am getting paid for it. It feels a bit like making a promotion on Facebook or Instagram, as everybody else is going to see you with it. And a company should offer some goodies or monetary reward for people to promote their business.

Everybody likes the noble cause and if anyone oppose the Prop27, those guys will really look like a villain in the eyes of the society. The gaming tribes will  definitely look like they are the ones preventing the advancement of the legalization measures. But both party have politicians on thier sides which I guess this is going ot be a numbers game.

The same effect and the same thing, sports betting will continue either in the area or online.

The author is still debating which prop he favors but he drifts to pointing out NY took about a month to become the largest sports-betting market in the country after legalization because online sports-betting companies can immediately roll out their aggressive promotions. Although he is unsure if app-based sports betting is much worse.

It doesn't matter whether you are a sports gamblers who sits in front of a big screen betting on football matches wearing football jerseys and baseball caps they wore backward or the sports gambler who just sits down wearing pajamas at home betting with thier phones. I think it drifted far enough to see what we look like upon deciding on online betting legalization. Wearing a cosplay costume will probably just apply on metaverse if there is ever a possibility of this. Would you wear a costume on Meta?

You clearly did not made a mistake since you are replying to QueenVera

https://web.archive.org/web/20221125013407/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5418224.20

Yes, in fact it is a very clear option that when we make a bet it is like in trading, we ourselves are to blame, we cannot predict exactly what may happen in a sport, but there is something clear, here in sports betting we have more chance to win than to play in a slot machine, because in sports betting our decision is what makes us win or lose and we do not depend on a random system, if luck can be mixed, but it is optional. In the event that I choose a particular sport to bet without a doubt, it is soccer, other sports can be boxing and UFC, in other sports I need to learn, I do not have the experience to face making a bet blindly, it would be losing money.

So many sports pickers these days that some of the gamblers don't even know the game, they just bet based on what YouTubers pick for them.

The article actually branches out to different sub-topics about sports betting but it's a very political article that lets every voter see whichever party wins, the winning party will do no different than the other will do, all lies. The same effect and the same thing, sports betting will continue either in the area or online.

When I read article I was surprised to see that it claims sports betting is more problematic than other kinds. I don't see why. Sports betting happens when there are competitions. But you can gamble 7/24 on online casinos. Sports betting takes amount of experience skill, knowing teams to hit a win etc But other kinds of gambling games are mostly very easy and luck based. So easy to hook. I don't agree with argument.

I see two things here. The first is that I am surprised that there are a lot of states in the USA where gambling is not legalised. Gambling has its bad things, like alcohol for example, but it is more than proven that by prohibiting it you don't eliminate it, you leave it in the hands of mafias and you stop collecting taxes. And this brings me to the second part, that part of the taxes will be used to help the homeless seems to me to be a poor argument. What we have to do is to attack the root of the problem and try to avoid, or at least reduce the percentage of homeless people.

Then, as for the clothes that people may be wearing, I consider that a secondary issue.

I doubt with bragging. Gamblers are also sharing commonalities which makes them good friends, try to observe in a casino. They are all going along at first and things are just changing to worse once it is money which is in the 'middle'. Once there are people losing huge amounts, the tension will change.

This is too much, and I also don't see how a nation with majority of sport gamblers will promote competition. When different people have a common interest in an activity, it can lead to closer bonds formed. In a country where majority of the people gamble on sports, apart from all the bad it can cause, it also gives everyone a common topic that they can all relate to and foster better relationship. You can notice how easily smokers become friends, even people who drink, that's the same effect it will provide for a nation where majority of people sports gamble.

You are right with the smokers example you gave and how they quickly make friends but you have to know that smokers are not braggers. Gamblers are braggers. That is where the difference is. It is very hard for those who brag alot to remain in peace when they meet with those who also brag. This is what happens most times when gamblers meet.

You can notice how easily smokers become friends, even people who drink, that's the same effect it will provide for a nation where majority of people sports gamble.

This applies to boxing and MMA but for team sports like soccer or basketball, you may just depend on their best players like Curry, Klay Tom, or Lebron. All the time the pickers spread thier word and often they are right when you look at the odds.

At home, we have heard of wives refusing their husbands food and sex when the teams they support lose to their husbands opposing teams. Where is the competitiveness then?

Or would you say a nation of sports gamblers is a competitive citizen?

I do think that what the government is trying to do is by preventing addiction rather than curing it.

Though this may be the case, I find it too restrictive to the point that there are states that completely prohibit online gambling. But, this kind of problem may easily be remedied by visiting other states and gambling on it. While it may be inconvenient for you, but it relatively solves the issue of complete prohibition done by some states that prohibited gambling.

Again, while I am not in favour of completely prohibiting gambling, I do understand the implication that the government did by making this move.

A nation of gamblers would be a nation of irresponsible citizenry. The constant fights that will often come on will be a thing of worry. Take for instance communities where gamblers are much and see the irresponsible living in that community with youngsters not wanting to get proper jobs or do anything meaningful with their lives. Everybody wants to hit it big so they can display their wealth. Morality and communal living will be lost in such nation and people can kill in such communities at the slightest disagreement.

Or would you say a nation of sports gamblers is a competitive citizen?
During Olympics, all I see on the top gold getter are the US, China, Germany, and Russia. I don't see Mexico being the top gold medalist in boxing.

Back when I was serious about sports gambling. Efforts were made to use math, science, psychology and other avenues of study towards anticipating the outcome of matches.

Sometimes you can tell how hungry and motivated athletes are going into events simply by watching their interviews and paying close attention to their body language and responses. It is also possible to tell when they're unmotivated and distracted.

When Cain Velasquez fought Francis Ngannou. Cain Velasquez was sweating heavily despite not moving or exerting himself much at the open workout. He looked out of shape or injured. I used that indicator to bet heavily on Ngannou and won. Later it emerged Velasquez had a knee injury and wasn't able to run much to prepare his cardio for that bout. There were other occasions where I tried to use the law of large numbers and other aspects of math, science and strategy to be successful in gambling.

A nation of sports gamblers might study the psychology of sports and cold reading athletes to gauge performance at events. As well as strategy and math for better understanding odds and strategizing. A nation of gamblers wouldn't necessarily have to be a decadent or regressive trend. It could actually encourage people to embrace fields of study which might be useful for being profitable in the industry.

A nation of gamblers would be a nation of irresponsible citizenry. The constant fights that will often come on will be a thing of worry. Take for instance communities where gamblers are much and see the irresponsible living in that community with youngsters not wanting to get proper jobs or do anything meaningful with their lives. Everybody wants to hit it big so they can display their wealth. Morality and communal living will be lost in such nation and people can kill in such communities at the slightest disagreement.

A nation of gamblers would be a nation of irresponsible citizenry. The constant fights that will often come on will be a thing of worry. Take for instance communities where gamblers are much and see the irresponsible living in that community with youngsters not wanting to get proper jobs or do anything meaningful with their lives. Everybody wants to hit it big so they can display their wealth. Morality and communal living will be lost in such nation and people can kill in such communities at the slightest disagreement.

I don't totally agree with this. Gambling directly affects your mental health too. Do you know why people become a gambling addicts? This is because they play too much gambling that their mind fails to recognize how much gambling is good or bad for them. They are unable to make the right decisions and this is directly linked to mental health.

Also if people start to lose in gambling, they will become tense. They will have a very adverse and bad effect on their mind. Just like winning in gambling and getting a lot of money can have a good effect on the mind, losing money will have a bad effect on the mind.

A nation of sport gamblers will have the problem of having citizen who are mostly Irresponsible. The gambling will not affect everyone making everyone irresponsible, but it will surely have the number of irresponsible people more than the responsible. The irresponsibility is people who gamble without control, and those that will do anything just to keep getting money to gamble including involving in crime.

I don't totally agree with this. Gambling directly affects your mental health too. Do you know why people become a gambling addicts? This is because they play too much gambling that their mind fails to recognize how much gambling is good or bad for them. They are unable to make the right decisions and this is directly linked to mental health.

Also if people start to lose in gambling, they will become tense. They will have a very adverse and bad effect on their mind. Just like winning in gambling and getting a lot of money can have a good effect on the mind, losing money will have a bad effect on the mind.

Gambling on the other hand has nothing to do with your physical health (your mental health is another story) and that’s why there isn’t any entity to keep you in line other than the government and the government always ban the stuff which can’t have it under control.

A nation of sport gamblers will have the problem of having citizen who are mostly Irresponsible. The gambling will not affect everyone making everyone irresponsible, but it will surely have the number of irresponsible people more than the responsible. The irresponsibility is people who gamble without control, and those that will do anything just to keep getting money to gamble including involving in crime.

A nation of sport gamblers will have the problem of having citizen who are mostly Irresponsible. The gambling will not affect everyone making everyone irresponsible, but it will surely have the number of irresponsible people more than the responsible. The irresponsibility is people who gamble without control, and those that will do anything just to keep getting money to gamble including involving in crime.

I see two things here. The first is that I am surprised that there are a lot of states in the USA where gambling is not legalised. Gambling has its bad things, like alcohol for example, but it is more than proven that by prohibiting it you don't eliminate it, you leave it in the hands of mafias and you stop collecting taxes. And this brings me to the second part, that part of the taxes will be used to help the homeless seems to me to be a poor argument. What we have to do is to attack the root of the problem and try to avoid, or at least reduce the percentage of homeless people.

Then, as for the clothes that people may be wearing, I consider that a secondary issue.

A nation of sport gamblers will have the problem of having citizen who are mostly Irresponsible. The gambling will not affect everyone making everyone irresponsible, but it will surely have the number of irresponsible people more than the responsible. The irresponsibility is people who gamble without control, and those that will do anything just to keep getting money to gamble including involving in crime.

A nation of sport gamblers will have the problem of having citizen who are mostly Irresponsible. The gambling will not affect everyone making everyone irresponsible, but it will surely have the number of irresponsible people more than the responsible. The irresponsibility is people who gamble without control, and those that will do anything just to keep getting money to gamble including involving in crime.

I don't like a nation of sport gamblers as they would be in default debt really soon because no one would really work,all of them would have their mind in their betting.

I see two things here. The first is that I am surprised that there are a lot of states in the USA where gambling is not legalised. Gambling has its bad things, like alcohol for example, but it is more than proven that by prohibiting it you don't eliminate it, you leave it in the hands of mafias and you stop collecting taxes. And this brings me to the second part, that part of the taxes will be used to help the homeless seems to me to be a poor argument. What we have to do is to attack the root of the problem and try to avoid, or at least reduce the percentage of homeless people.

Then, as for the clothes that people may be wearing, I consider that a secondary issue.

I see two things here. The first is that I am surprised that there are a lot of states in the USA where gambling is not legalised. Gambling has its bad things, like alcohol for example, but it is more than proven that by prohibiting it you don't eliminate it, you leave it in the hands of mafias and you stop collecting taxes. And this brings me to the second part, that part of the taxes will be used to help the homeless seems to me to be a poor argument. What we have to do is to attack the root of the problem and try to avoid, or at least reduce the percentage of homeless people.

Then, as for the clothes that people may be wearing, I consider that a secondary issue.

The Circa opened at a time when online sports betting, which is now legal in more than twenty states and the District of Columbia, was in full march across the United States. This meant that the Circa not only faced stiff competition from well-funded competitors such as DraftKings, FanDuel and Caesars but it also was trying to sell an in-person experience that might very well be woefully out of date. For four of my friends and me, renting one of Circa’s “Millionaire’s Row” football-watching booths on an N.F.L. Sunday required a twenty-five-hundred-dollar drink-and-food minimum, with a mandatory five-hundred-dollar tip. Instead of just firing off bets on our phones in front of our own televisions, on our own couches, we had to stand in line to place bets at a window. Some of the modern innovations in sports gambling, which include live betting, where you can wager in the middle of a game, and elaborate parlays, where you can string together multiple exotic bets for one giant payday, are harder to find at a brick-and-mortar casino like the Circa. On an app, you can also bet on everything from South American soccer leagues and global cricket matches to political races, most of which were not offered at the brick-and-mortar Circa sportsbook and likely not at the smaller sportsbooks in Las Vegas.

In interviews and in the press, Derek Stevens, the owner of the Circa, has seemed a bit coy about why he built this place. But here’s my theory: Stevens intuits, perhaps correctly, that widespread sports-gambling legalization will bring what once was a barely clandestine culture fully out into the open. Betting apps, then, aren’t really his competition but, rather, client-outreach vehicles that could help lure people into his casinos, especially for big events like March Madness and the Super Bowl. He has created, in essence, the Disney World of sports gambling—a place where large groups of people go a few times in a lifetime, and splurge on everything from bets to cabanas and spa packages. All he needs for the vision to work is a nation of sports bettors ready to open their wallets.

Creating a nation of sports bettors would presumably require the participation of the nation’s most populous state. (Thirty per cent of visitors to Las Vegas last year came from California.) The state has two sports-betting-legalization measures on this November’s ballot. Proposition 26 would allow sports gambling, but only at brick-and-mortar tribal casinos and racetracks. Proposition 27 would legalize online sports betting, and passing it might result in something like the app-based, heavily marketed gambling blitzes we’ve seen in New York and New Jersey.

The supporters and opponents of both proposals have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to saturate Californians with ads; this has led to a great deal of confusion among voters. Nobody seems to know which proposal does what, which ones are supported by the tribes—an important political concern, especially within the progressive nonprofit space—or even what the bills will actually do. The Web site for YESon27, for example, mentions very little about sports gambling at all. Instead, it focusses almost exclusively on the money the bill would raise to ease homelessness through a monthly ten-per-cent state tax on sports betting: the funds would first be used to cover regulatory costs, but, after that, eighty-five per cent of that money would go toward addressing homelessness, and the remaining fifteen per cent would be distributed to Native American tribes that are not involved in sports betting.

Most of the money to stop Prop 27 has been raised by gaming tribes that operate casinos that, along with a broad coalition that includes the California Democratic and Republican parties, have brought up everything from the addictive properties of gambling on your phone to tribal-sovereignty issues. Their argument relies on the premise that online gambling is much worse than going to a casino in person, which, of course, is totally fine. In fact, the big gaming tribes seem to be saying that in-person betting is so fine that everyone should support Prop 26 instead and allow sports gambling—but only in racetracks and, of course, their casinos.

It’s all a bit silly and disingenuous. One side uses the homelessness crisis as a cover for legalizing sports-betting apps; the other pretends that they alone can provide a safe gambling experience. Neither proposition is polling well—a recent U.C. Berkeley poll showed that a mere twenty-seven per cent of voters support Prop 27, a response that is doing only slightly worse than that for Prop 26, which is seeing support from just thirty-one per cent of likely voters. The marked lack of support has pushed the proponents of Prop 27, which include the big app companies like FanDuel and DraftKings, to mostly give up and wait until 2024 to try again.

None of this means online sports betting is dead in California; in fact, all it really highlights is that many powerful interests appear to be cornering what they think will be a lucrative market. The amount of money at stake and the other states that have already bought in may actually broker some sort of compromise between the tribes and the app-based gaming companies. The tribes could also spend the next few years trying to build their own apps, and trying to control the market themselves.

Online sports betting, as I wrote last year, seems to fit in with Robinhood, stock-trading apps, and cryptocurrency trading in getting users—usually young, impressionable men—hooked on losing their money. It took New York State about a month after legalization to become, for a while, the largest sports-betting market in the country; thanks to aggressive customer-acquisition campaigns that included incessant ads and free bonuses and bets, gamblers in the state wagered $2.8 billion in the first seven weeks. Some studies have shown that sports betting is five times more likely to lead to problematic play than other types of gambling. Other studies say that online gambling is more addictive than analogue casino betting. (Though it should be pointed out that, at least in California, the casinos are helping to push that narrative.) Because the big online-gambling companies can roll out their services almost immediately after legalization, and have a seemingly unlimited amount of money for promotions, they will likely outpace whatever support infrastructure that can get built to help addicted bettors.

I’ve spent way too much of my adult life in casinos and cardrooms and sportsbooks, where I’ve met more than my fair share of problem gamblers. I’m still not sure if app-based sports betting is much worse than betting in the Circa sportsbook, where a few steps in any direction run you directly into a slot machine. The idea that it’s somehow healthier to place your bets at a racetrack than on your phone doesn’t really pass muster. Gambling addiction is, in many ways, built on sensory compulsions: the smell of the grass at the track, the sound of a roulette ball bouncing across the face of the wheel, the sharp edges of the dice digging into your fingers. It’s still an open question as to whether the apps can match up to the sensations of physical spaces that have been designed to suck the cash out of your pockets.

There’s a well-worn maxim in gambling that says you should assume everyone is lying to you at all times. This rule also seems to have carried over to the debates about online sports betting, where the only thing you can really trust is that every press release and every commercial is specifically aimed at cutting someone into the action or cutting someone else out. Instead of trying to cloak the issue in more palatable talking points such as tax revenue and homelessness funding, politicians, lobbyists, and the corporations who want FanDuel and DraftKings in their state might do better to just ask the question in a more up-front way. Because Americans, on the whole, do seem to want to become a nation of sports bettors—this year, Maine, Kansas, Minnesota, and Massachusetts passed sports-betting legislation. The will of the dudes in Instagram shorts with a few expendable dollars to put on a game will be served.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/what-would-a-nation-of-sports-gamblers-look-like