It's over - no single-game betting in Delaware

It's over - no single-game betting in Delaware [url]https://www.delawareonline.com/article/20100504/OPINION11/5040334/1004/OPINION/Courts--rebuff-frustrates-sports-betting-proponents[/url]

[QUOTE=Cizzle;22021][url]https://www.delawareonline.com/article/20100504/OPINION11/5040334/1004/OPINION/Courts--rebuff-frustrates-sports-betting-proponents[/url][/QUOTE] Not surprising. Someone figured out that the US Government is losing out on a few billion dollars in tax revenue because they don't allow online gambling. Instead maybe we can get a VAT tax.... Stupid people.

[QUOTE=truushot;22023]Not surprising. Someone figured out that the US Government is losing out on a few billion dollars in tax revenue because they don't allow online gambling. Instead maybe we can get a VAT tax.... Stupid people.[/QUOTE] Let's hope the Feds (through the US Sup. Ct.) shut down Delaware's attempt to earn sports betting revenue because the US Congress is cooking up something instead re: online betting. If this is the case, the US Sup. Ct.'s move may be buying Congress time to "exclusively regulate" sports betting, thereby preempting the states from subsequently regulating this field of "commerce". Maybe then, the US Sup. Ct.'s refusal to hear the case is actually a good sign. I'm just trying to stay positive.

My understanding is that only 3-team NFL parlays, because that is what they were offering when the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act was enacted by Congress in 1992. It would seem that Delaware could effectively offer single game betting on NFL while still being in technical compliance with the 3-team parlay requirement. If they were to offer the first leg of the parlay at prevailing line, and the second and third legs of the parlay at lines that would essentially make them no-lose bets, it would it in essence be a single game bet. For example, if a bettor wanted Arizona -3.5 in the first week, they would bet Arizona -3.5 and two other random teams at +99. The parlay would then look like this: Arizona -3.5 NY Giants +99 Chicago +99

[QUOTE=Winn;22027]My understanding is that only 3-team NFL parlays, because that is what they were offering when the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act was enacted by Congress in 1992. It would seem that Delaware could effectively offer single game betting on NFL while still being in technical compliance with the 3-team parlay requirement. If they were to offer the first leg of the parlay at prevailing line, and the second and third legs of the parlay at lines that would essentially make them no-lose bets, it would it in essence be a single game bet. For example, if a bettor wanted Arizona -3.5 in the first week, they would bet Arizona -3.5 and two other random teams at +99. The parlay would then look like this: Arizona -3.5 NY Giants +99 Chicago +99[/QUOTE] Unfortunately, Delaware would only get away with this for about one week. As soon as one parlay bet like the one described above was accepted, the Feds would hit Delaware with a lawsuit and motion for an injunction in Federal District Court. More specifically, the Feds would file suit against Delaware seeking to permanently enjoin these types of parlays on the ground that Delaware is trying an "end run" around a previous federal court's order. In the meantime, the motion would seek to preliminarily enjoin Delaware's conduct pending a final resolution of the lawsuit (after discovery, motion practice, trial, etc.). The Feds would likely easiy win both its motion and the lawsuit. All it would have to do is introduce evidence that no sports book in the world would accept, let alone even offer, a parlay such as this. The Delaware Attorney General is smart enough to understand the above, so (and unfortunately for us) it's unlikey the state will even try to get creative regarding single-game betting.

[QUOTE=Cizzle;22024]Let's hope the Feds (through the US Sup. Ct.) shut down Delaware's attempt to earn sports betting revenue because the US Congress is cooking up something instead re: online betting. If this is the case, the US Sup. Ct.'s move may be buying Congress time to "exclusively regulate" sports betting, thereby preempting the states from subsequently regulating this field of "commerce". Maybe then, the US Sup. Ct.'s refusal to hear the case is actually a good sign. I'm just trying to stay positive.[/QUOTE] So, you are hoping that the current administration will try and "exclusively regulate" sports betting? I'm guessing nobody would be able to lay less than -150 if that happened.

[QUOTE=Twoniner;22035]So, you are hoping that the current administration will try and "exclusively regulate" sports betting? I'm guessing nobody would be able to lay less than -150 if that happened.[/QUOTE] No, "regulation" is different from "operation." For example, the states "regulate" residential telephone, internet, and cable television utilities. They do not operate the utilities. Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, etc. are the private operators. You do make a good point, though. If, hypothetically speaking, the Feds overly tax private sports book operators, I suppose prices could go up. Of course, market forces could counter the over taxation; namely, private operators might decide not to enter the field if the Feds make prices too high. And, I'm pretty sure the Fed is not interested in running sports books itself. Also, constitutionally speaking, if the Fed enters a market as a participant, it opens itself up to, among other things, liability to consumers. I am of course greatly oversimplifying here to make a point. I suppose it's not out of the realm of possibility though to envision a world where the Feds regulate and tax internet sports books, making the standard price -115. There are plenty of squares out there who would pay it. One would hope though that the Fed would bring in a consultant who would explain that legalized internet sports betting even at -110 would still make money hand over fist, and that any greater price would simply "price out" a majority of consumers.

[QUOTE=Cizzle;22037]No, "regulation" is different from "operation." For example, the states "regulate" residential telephone, internet, and cable television utilities. They do not operate the utilities. Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, etc. are the private operators. You do make a good point, though. If, hypothetically speaking, the Feds overly tax private sports book operators, I suppose prices could go up. Of course, market forces could counter the over taxation; namely, private operators might decide not to enter the field if the Feds make prices too high. And, I'm pretty sure the Fed is not interested in running sports books itself. Also, constitutionally speaking, if the Fed enters a market as a participant, it opens itself up to, among other things, liability to consumers. I am of course greatly oversimplifying here to make a point. I suppose it's not out of the realm of possibility though to envision a world where the Feds regulate and tax internet sports books, making the standard price -115. There are plenty of squares out there who would pay it. One would hope though that the Fed would bring in a consultant who would explain that legalized internet sports betting even at -110 would still make money hand over fist, and that any greater price would simply "price out" a majority of consumers.[/QUOTE] Many European countries tax the crap out gambling winnings expect no less here.

By "winnings" I assume you are referring to the operators' revenue. I don't think taxes applied to individual winnings would increase prices. I'm otherwise unfamiliar with how other countries tax the books' revenue. Are the stndard prices higher than -110 in European countries?

[QUOTE=Cizzle;22042]By "winnings" I assume you are referring to the operators' revenue. I don't think taxes applied to individual winnings would increase prices. I'm otherwise unfamiliar with how other countries tax the books' revenue. Are the stndard prices higher than -110 in European countries?[/QUOTE] I was referring to the players end of the deal. What I heard was that one guy's country was taxing him at 50 percent. Can't remember which. Our country would probably tax the books at some ridiculous rate and they would then be forced to either live with much smaller profits or raise the rates on US players. Maybe starting at -120 many books online are already offering terrible lines for US players in some sports. Many European books offer lines at much better rates for boxing then I get. If you where a dog better in boxing (loser) you'd always want to bet the books I use. For example, Klitschko is fighting at the end of the month TheGreek put their line up at -5000 to open. Last time, I checked, you can get him for -3300 at at least one European book. Obviously we aren't betting either of those lines, just making a point.