Let's get ready to...gamble! (OT)

[FMcB]

What the Supreme Court’s sports gambling decision means

"The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of New Jersey in the case that was formerly known as Chris Christie vs. NCAA (Christie’s name has been supplanted by Phil Murphy, the state’s new governor), striking down a 25-year old federal law known as the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) that largely outlawed sports betting outside of Nevada.

The court’s 6-3 decision overruled the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, saying PASPA violates the state’s 10th Amendment rights, thereby creating a path for New Jersey and other states to offer sports betting.

“Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own,” wrote Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., for the majority. “Our job is to interpret the law Congress has enacted and decide whether it is consistent with the Constitution. PASPA is not.”

Pretty much legitimizes daily fantasy baseball to call themselves what they are.

Really concerned with how easy it will be to get into trouble laying down real money on whims for many. Be careful my friends.

[julio]

Since this is obviously coming, I have a question. How should philliesphans, as a community, react to this? Should we encourage gambling-related discussions here? Discourage them? Exclude them entirely? Take no position (head in the sand, as it were)? Thoughts?

[allentown]

This site is primarily about Philly sports, not gambling. Like all OT topics, I suggest a stand-alone thread labeled [0t].

This SC decision was inevitable. You can't have it legal in Nevada and tell the other states "You didn't adopt it when you had the chance, when we wrote the bill Nevada wanted, so now they have a monopoly forever." Federalism and equal protection under the law don't work like that.

[bkeich]

I agree with Allentown, it is simply off topic, much like the Political threads. The nice part is one can just not follow it and never really see it.

You might want to put something in the signup if the site has no responsibility for any advise given (unless something is already there). Just a thought.

[zambonir]

It's not quite as off-topic as politics (or celebrity deaths) though. I have placed the odd prop bet on the Phillies in my day (over/under for wins, to win the World Series, etc.). One year, before onilne gambling started to look more problematic, I placed and won a bet on a certain rookie of the year to take the next season's home run title.

Anyway, I've never much cared for point spread bets but a single topic to discuss it might be appropriate. OTOH you could say the same about fantasy. Clearly there are other places to discuss both things. If enough people on the list really do get interested in it it's bound to come up in normal conversation (i.e., "Hector Neris got the save, but that one run he gave me up cost me $20!).

[phillychuck]

Other sports forums do allow this kind of discussion (if we are interested in decisions made by other boards). In my experience it's pretty self-limiting. I would add to our TOS that any advice is worth what you pay for it!

[julio]

Another possibility (that some of you may not even be aware is available) would be to set up a separate sub-forum - and perhaps restrict that sub-forum to only registered members who are logged in - e.g., invisible to anonymous visitors. ???

[LegoDoom]

As an outsider, but as one that has visited other sites that have had separate gambling and sports related topics, I never thought that the occasional reference to a daily/series/season line is too distracting. I equate it to the offseason comments on this phorum about the over/under phillies season wins or the like.

If it derails a topic, then it should be moved to a gambling thread. Otherwise, I don't think it takes away from discussions too much.

I recently made a response to a comment that the Celtics were considered by many to win the series against the Sixers and used Vegas lines as an example of why that may not have been correct. I assumed it was relevant while not be specifically about gambling. If it wasn't, I apologize, but I assume that a similar line of comments could add to a discussion while not be specifically about gambling. For instance, a comment in a game day thread noting that the line on the Phillies game seems low/high may generate a discussion about why it is that way and not specifically about how we should be betting on it.

Anyway, just an opinion of someone that doesn't contribute much here, but enjoys the analysis of a lot of more informed baseball people than myself.

[phillychuck]

In response to julio, for a small forum, sub-forums tend to dilute participation so much that it's hard to get the critical mass required for a good conversation.

[zambonir]

I recently made a response to a comment that the Celtics were considered by many to win the series against the Sixers and used Vegas lines as an example of why that may not have been correct

And that will be a whole other discussion, since so much more goes into betting lines than who the bookmaker or betting public thinks might actually win. My guess is the Celtics were underdogs (as they still were yesterday) because way too many amateur gamblers were on the Sixers train (and now the LeBron train).

For instance, in this article most of the handicappers say to bet the 'dogs because the points are too good to pass up (Boston/Houston), but also predict those teams will win outright.

Rockets, Celtics live series underdogs to Warriors, Cavaliers

[LegoDoom]

For instance, in this article most of the handicappers say to bet the 'dogs because the points are too good to pass up (Boston/Houston), but also predict those teams will win outright.

It's a whole other discussion that I don't really want to get into right now, but that article mentions moneyline odds and not points. I assume you know the difference, but thought I should mention it. I like the Celtics bet, but not the Rockets. That has nothing to do with who I think will win, but with the probability of those teams winning, which was my entire point as to why it would invoke further discussion. I assume that was your point, but I don't think I have heard points being referred to as odds and they are definitely different things.

Anyway, obviously the odds vary by a lot of factors. However, in the case of a weekday Phillies game, wouldn't a peculiar betting line pique a bit more of an interest than an NBA playoff game/series where a lot more money is pushing the line?

[zambonir]

Yes, true, I was also looking back at the point spread (Sixers were -5 in Game 1 against Boston I think).

Actually betting sports sounds exhausting to me for anything other than entertainment and the occasional fun dumb luck (no doubt balanced out by dumb bad luck).

[LegoDoom]

Actually betting sports sounds exhausting to me for anything other than entertainment and the occasional fun dumb luck (no doubt balanced out by dumb bad luck).

I totally agree, which is why I think it's worthwhile to talk about why a team might be favored to win 2-to-1 in a game/series when it doesn't seem obvious as to why that may be the case. Not that I am interesting in betting, but because it doesn't seem like there is that big or small of a discrepancy in outcomes. I have no interest in handicapping games.

Unless I'm wrong, I think it's fairly common to discuss Phillies projected win totals in the offseason. I thought that sparked a debate into how posters agree or disagree with that projection.

But, as I said, I am more of a casual poster/fan of this site and I am certainly not asking to give my opinion any more weight than that.

[zambonir]

Congratulations, sports media: You just got a big business-model subsidy from...

I'm sure this is right, ESPN already covers it (but has never gone all-in because their league partners frowned on it). Won't be long before The Athletic hires some people I bet.

[tom81]

My opinion is that if the discussion involves betting on anything related to baseball it is a fair topic of discussion since betting on sports is legal in Nevada and soon to be legal elsewhere and this site is about baseball. If the discussion involves betting on other things such as basketball/football/horse racing/etc it should be allowed on the site by labeled OT.

[zambonir]

How Betting Will Change the Sports Media Business

[jimbomill]

What does philliesphans, as a community, take as it's position on any other sensitive topic, say Right-to-Choose, or guns?
Head-in-the-sand translates to members making copious posts. As long as they adhere to the Forum rules, have at it.
That's my feeling.

[jimbomill]

Good advice.
Gambling was going on , regardless of the legality. Now that slight stigma of illegality is disappearing. It will go on, just regulated and taxed, providing income to the states (and Federal Gov't) that allow it.

[bkeich]

What does philliesphans, as a community, take as it's position on any other sensitive topic, say Right-to-Choose, or guns?
Head-in-the-sand translates to members making copious posts. As long as they adhere to the Forum rules, have at it.
That's my feeling.

I agree Jimbo, but I think it is key to keep it within specific topics or in another "section". There are OT things that I never read or am interested in on this forum and having the "new" system where I can just unfollow these topics is very nice.

[zambonir]

The difference is sports gambling will overlap directly with baseball. Politics, or even the 76ers, does not. So if people really want to talk about gambling in depth of course that will be its own thread, presumably a running seasonlong thread just like news. But a bit of discussion here and there is bound to bleed into regular conversation.

Personally it's always going to be separate for me, I'm not necessarily even inclined to bet on the Phillies as I only ever want them to win, period.

Of course this conflict exists already for fantasy players. Given how little we ever discuss fantasy (both the long-running version or the Internet version) I can't imagine sports gambling will be any different. No one here cares if a Phillies player (or an opposing player) did something good for someone's fantasy team and no one is going to care if Hector Neris giving up two runs in a three-run game cost someone 20 bucks.