NY bans FanDuel & DraftKings

Good ruling, the law on gambling is stupid though. If you want to gamble or hire a prostitute or marry six people I say **** it. Government should stop being so concerned about people's personal decisions.

Most states have an incentive to ban Internet gambling because gambling is a fairly finicky but often times lucrative revenue generator for the state (functioning effectively a regressive income tax). The problem is that if you have too many casinos and other gambling institutions like racetracks they tend to cannibalize each other's revenues and therefore you end up with lots of gambling institutions and no profit. A free market in gambling leads to suboptimal outcomes for both capital and the state which relies on those profits for revenue.

Internet gambling adds another variable to this already difficult balancing act, and unlike casinos and other such institutions, Internet gambling doesn't bring with it theoretically desirable economic development qualities like jobs and infrastructure development.

I'm not a huge fan of casinos as a silver bullet for economic development (because of the cannibalization issue) or gambling as a revenue generator (because it functions as a regressive tax), but just wanted to point out there's political economy to think about here, it's not just legislating morality as some might think (though problem gambling brings social and economic costs with it as well).

If banning eventually puts a stop to the fantasy talk crap that I'm bombarded with then .... I'm all for it.

Phew! Thank god we have "those who know what's best for us....who rise up and save us from ourselves".

Whether it is unlawful, technically unlawful or whatever, it is a silly endeavor to stop an activity that is wholly on the Internet when lotteries, casinos, horse racing, bingo, office pools, poker games are omnipresent. And the 'just enforcing the law' is an odd argument given governments, from the feds on down, have been selectively enforcing laws based on "priorities" for a long time. I realize "priorities" usually equals ideology, capital gain or political gain, however, sometimes it would be nice if those in a position of authority would be pragmatic or just modestly thoughtful. Who knows -- maybe that pragmatism would trickle down to private entities that, let's say, govern a preeminent sport.

PatsWSB47 said:

Apologies to all our fantacy fans but I've had it with all of the ones that stand up and cheer at awkward Patriots game moments because one of their non Patriot fantacy players just got points. Annoys the hell out of me at Gillette.

Click to expand...

This!

Also, I was at the Dolphins game a couple weeks ago. I was filming one of the Patriots' plays when they were in the red-zone. I believe it was right before one of Edelman's TDs.

Later that night, I re-watched the clip and guess what I caught in the background? A Pats fan saying:

"I hope Brady doesn't throw for a touchdown here hehehe". It was most definitely a reference to fantasy football - probably a case where he didn't want his opponent to get more stupid fantasy points with a Brady TD. It couldn't have been a Dolphins fan either, since there was none around me.

Bobsyouruncle said:

That's not what happened. They didn't decide to prosecute insider trading. They expanded a law to include them that excluded them. Usually new laws are done through the legislature.

Click to expand...

They decided to (appropriately, imho) apply gambling laws to fantasy.

The market is so saturated with their ads, they obviously know this is going to happen and they are just milking it for all it's worth while they can.

primetime said:

Most states have an incentive to ban Internet gambling because gambling is a fairly finicky but often times lucrative revenue generator for the state (functioning effectively a regressive income tax). The problem is that if you have too many casinos and other gambling institutions like racetracks they tend to cannibalize each other's revenues and therefore you end up with lots of gambling institutions and no profit. A free market in gambling leads to suboptimal outcomes for both capital and the state which relies on those profits for revenue.

Internet gambling adds another variable to this already difficult balancing act, and unlike casinos and other such institutions, Internet gambling doesn't bring with it theoretically desirable economic development qualities like jobs and infrastructure development.

I'm not a huge fan of casinos as a silver bullet for economic development (because of the cannibalization issue) or gambling as a revenue generator (because it functions as a regressive tax), but just wanted to point out there's political economy to think about here, it's not just legislating morality as some might think (though problem gambling brings social and economic costs with it as well).

Click to expand...

Why not have fantasy run by state lottery commissions? They can even subcontract it to Fan Duel and Draft Kings.

raduray said:

Why not have fantasy run by state lottery commissions? They can even subcontract it to Fan Duel and Draft Kings.

Click to expand...

I think you still end up with some sort of cannibalization issue for your physical gambling properties, which have desirable qualities (jobs, mostly, but also acting as an anchor for further development) that digital gaming, or the lottery, doesn't do for you.

But I don't see anything particularly wrong with this idea if a state does want to go into the online gambling business. Some may cry socialism, but the guy with the Karl Marx avatar isn't going to complain.

primetime said:

I think you still end up with some sort of cannibalization issue for your physical gambling properties, which have desirable qualities (jobs, mostly, but also acting as an anchor for further development) that digital gaming, or the lottery, doesn't do for you.

But I don't see anything particularly wrong with this idea if a state does want to go into the online gambling business. Some may cry socialism, but the guy with the Karl Marx avatar isn't going to complain.

Click to expand...

I think fantasy does not lend itself to brick and mortar operation. To the extent that the states have already adopted lotteries as revenue generators, fantasy would be a way to expand that franchise. There's no downside to the state. I'm not sure how that would fit in under federal laws that promulgate the other fantasy, that fantasy sports are not gambling.

I quit fantasy sports this year after a rather successful 17 year run with it. I won a lot, though it was mostly for free and for bragging rights among friends (sometimes it was for money), but fantasy was taking away from the game for me.

I was getting irritated of myself being bothered when Brady didn't throw a touchdown to the guy I started that week. I hated feeling somewhat okay with it that the opposing RB gashed our defense because it helped me win my matchup, although I'm a homer and usually tried benching anyone facing the Pats. But I didn't like how it made me feel, and I didn't like the stress I was putting on myself in researching and agonizing on Sundays.

This year, with no fantasy baseball or fantasy football, has been very refreshing. I can just enjoy the game on its own for the first time since childhood, and when Brady throws a touchdown to Amendola, or Blount runs for the score instead of Brady throwing it, I don't feel ANY conflicting emotions. It's great. I've always said, when it comes to fantasy, the Patriots' needs are greater than my needs. Now I don't have to worry about it.

But yeah, to hell with DraftKings and FanDuel. If I never have to see another annoying daily fantasy sports ad again, it will be too soon.

PatsDeb said:

The market is so saturated with their ads, they obviously know this is going to happen and they are just milking it for all it's worth while they can.

Click to expand...

I'm no businessman but is putting a 100 million dollars in ads good business sense if they're about to go down?

Froob said:

Good ruling, the law on gambling is stupid though. If you want to gamble or hire a prostitute or marry six people I say **** it. Government should stop being so concerned about people's personal decisions.

Click to expand...

Sounds good at first, but...

Universal legalized gambling would seriously increase poverty and crime.

Legalized prostitution and polygamy? Abuse of women. (Not to mention the poor guy who has to deal with 8 wives nagging.)

Too many calories???

JetFan79 said:

Sounds good at first, but...

Universal legalized gambling would seriously increase poverty and crime.

Legalized prostitution and polygamy? Abuse of women. (Not to mention the poor guy who has to deal with 8 wives nagging.)

Click to expand...

Two sides of every argument. How would legalized gambling seriously increase poverty? That statement makes a series of presumptions that are simply not true.
1. Gambling exist without limits with state run lotteries, tracks, casinos etc...I can walk into any casino or 7-11 with my life savings in tow and gamble it all. No moral stigma or government regulations attached to my particular wallet.

2. People will find a way to do what they want/desire regardless of law. Locks and laws only keep the honest/disinterested folks out!

3. Just like gun laws it only hampers the law abiding citizens without felonies. A criminal has access to guns without constraint. (And to anyone against guns, please spare me any "You are a gun lover" etc arguments. I own two weapons a 12 and 20 gauge shotgun that have trigger locks and have been locked away and not shot for over 9 years. thanks)

Wheelman said:

I'm no businessman but is putting a 100 million dollars in ads good business sense if they're about to go down?

Click to expand...

Those ads are probably already paid for.

From McCann's article on the SI website:

I'd love to see Goodell testify under oath why DFS is not gambling.

mgcolby said:

Two sides of every argument. How would legalized gambling seriously increase poverty? That statement makes a series of presumptions that are simply not true.
1. Gambling exist without limits with state run lotteries, tracks, casinos etc...I can walk into any casino or 7-11 with my life savings in tow and gamble it all. No moral stigma or government regulations attached to my particular wallet.

2. People will find a way to do what they want/desire regardless of law. Locks and laws only keep the honest/disinterested folks out!

3. Just like gun laws it only hampers the law abiding citizens without felonies. A criminal has access to guns without constraint. (And to anyone against guns, please spare me any "You are a gun lover" etc arguments. I own two weapons a 12 and 20 gauge shotgun that have trigger locks and have been locked away and not shot for over 9 years. thanks)

Click to expand...

Just take a walk around AC (off the "strip") or the same in Vegas. I've done both. Not pretty or the type of country I want to live in.

Sure the lotto exists. But c'mon there's a huge difference between the lotto and full fledged gambling. Could you drop your life's savings or Timmy's college fund on lotto tickets?.. sure but who does? People who really want to gamble? Yeah they can find bookies and card games around, but even that is very limited in comparison to full-fledged legalized gambling and the marketing that goes along with it.

Face it. Humans for the most part are freakin idiots. Even if, I dunno, say Jet fans aren't dumb, but perhaps Pats fans are (just kidding). I wouldn't want to live in a country stricken with insane amounts of poverty and crime in one major group of people even if it meant the smart ones prospered. Bad enough as it is now.

I'd guess you may not agree because of your mention of guns (which I do support responsible gun ownership btw) and that usually means a very conservative "government bad" view, but some basic government to protect the masses from themselves is a good thing.

Sorry if my assumption of you having conservative views is incorrect. Even if so, you know what I mean.

JetFan79 said:

Just take a walk around AC (off the "strip") or the same in Vegas. I've done both. Not pretty or the type of country I want to live in.

Sure the lotto exists. But c'mon there's a huge difference between the lotto and full fledged gambling. Could you drop your life's savings or Timmy's college fund on lotto tickets?.. sure but who does? People who really want to gamble? Yeah they can find bookies and card games around, but even that is very limited in comparison to full-fledged legalized gambling and the marketing that goes along with it.

Face it. Humans for the most part are freakin idiots. Even if, I dunno, say Jet fans aren't dumb, but perhaps Pats fans are (just kidding). I wouldn't want to live in a country stricken with insane amounts of poverty and crime in one major group of people even if it meant the smart ones prospered. Bad enough as it is now.

I'd guess you may not agree because of your mention of guns (which I do support responsible gun ownership btw) and that usually means a very conservative "government bad" view, but some basic government to protect the masses from themselves is a good thing.

Sorry if my assumption of you having conservative views is incorrect. Even if so, you know what I mean.

Click to expand...

You're tossing out strawmen. There is poverty to be found throughout the country, regardless of where gambling is legal or illegal.

raduray said:

I think fantasy does not lend itself to brick and mortar operation.

Click to expand...

A lot of online sportsbooks offer fantasy head-2-head wagers, where you are given the choice between 2 players and select the one you think will score the most points. It is the same as wagering on a team (i.e. bet $110 to win $100) and sometimes there is a "point spread" involved.

For example, this weekend you could take Tom Brady versus Eli Manning +10 and bet like you would bet on the game's winner itself.

I always wondered what would happen if a casino like Foxwoods took such action.