Interesting opinion from someone in the know

[PerpetualCzech]

Unfortunately, it's not a good one.

I had breakfast with Chris Ferguson this morning. He has a piece of Full Tilt so I thought it would be a good opportunity to pick his brain on the UIGEA thing.

I mentioned I was a sports guy, not poker, and that I assumed what was good for poker would be good for sports as well. He disagreed. The poker lobby is pushing the angle that it should be considered a game of skill, something sports doesn't have. Also, there are the leagues with a lot of money like the NFL and NBA there to fight it, something that poker doesn't need to deal with. For those reasons, he felt the fortunes of poker and sports betting weren't married together as much as I suggested and that sports betting could get thrown under the bus.

Don't mean to be pessimistic, just passing along what I heard.

[WarDekar]

The Poker community has been throwing sports under the bus for years now, not sure where you got the idea we were friendly!

I forget all the different poker alliances and shit but one of them was passing stuff out at the WSOP and I told them to shove it until they take a reasonable stance towards sports.

I realize that it's in their best interest to distance themselves since it makes it easier to try and legalize poker, but doesn't mean I have to like it...

[martidani]

No way sports betting ever becomes legal in US (besides NV and maybe NJ). I say -10000 sports betting becomes legal in USA in next 20 years.

[Prop Man]

The only people that beat sports gambling are cheaters or bookies. That's the way most people view it. Its not a surprise what the poker community is trying to do. If they try to add sports to their fight, there's no chance they'd win.

[LVHCM1]

Pretty much what Wardekar said. This has been their stance from the beginning, I'm a little surprised you weren't aware of this already.

[Jeff Jones]

So why don't the people who play poker amd the people who play sports never meet? Other than the predictable LVHsomething obfuscation.

[PerpetualCzech]

Pretty much what Wardekar said. This has been their stance from the beginning, I'm a little surprised you weren't aware of this already.

You overestimate the access I have to trustworthy information. I live in frikkin' New Zealand.

[custer]

And New Zealand has lousy internet.

There are some good threads about this in the Legislation forum of twoplustwo.com.

Jon, this may be a good time to ask Mason for a cross link :).

[PerpetualCzech]

So why don't the people who play poker amd the people who play sports never meet?

One major difference between poker and sports: Poker is a public game where the biggest and the best are all on stage for us to see. Sports bettors are recluses. They are happy in their basements doing their thing and go out of their way to make sure nobody finds out about them. That's the biggest reason why a sports betting lobby will never get off the ground in the way that poker has.

[Jon in Oakland]

And New Zealand has lousy internet.

There are some good threads about this in the Legislation forum of twoplustwo.com.

Jon, this may be a good time to ask Mason for a cross link :).

Who is Mason and what's a cross link?

[EdTeach]

One major difference between poker and sports: Poker is a public game where the biggest and the best are all on stage for us to see. Sports bettors are recluses. They are happy in their basements doing their thing and go out of their way to make sure nobody finds out about them. That's the biggest reason why a sports betting lobby will never get off the ground in the way that poker has.

...except for the guys who start forums to show how they win and have newspaper articles written about them.

[BadgerSports]

Well if you think about the public perception between poker and sports betting I don't think sports betting will ever have a chance of legalization.

Poker: Everyone from your grandma, friends, family and such have played in a friendly poker game. It has a friendly tone where people drank beer, smoked cigars, laughed and had a great time and maybe won or lost a friendly amount.

Sports Betting: I think that when you mention the term "sports betting" to someone their first image is of a mob/gansta in a dark trenchcoat looking to collect. You only hear stores of sports betting that are game fixing, people losing money, broken bones, and such. It has a dark, uncomfortable image to the general public.

It's simply sad that in today's age where lotteries, casinos, stratch off tickets are everywhere that the federal government couldn't treat sports betting as a licensed, taxed money maker for itself the same way other forms of gambling are.

I think that poker doesn't want any attachment to sports betting because all it is going to shut them down is one simple heart felt story about how a college kid committed suicide over a huge amount of gambling debt that he built up betting sports.

This is the messed up world we live in.

[PerpetualCzech]

...except for the guys who start forums to show how they win and have newspaper articles written about them.

Not sure if this is meant as a barb or not but yeah, I acknowledge the guys that are involved in this room are not the norm.

[Rudy1957]

Heaven forbid the government ever getting into the business of sports betting. The economics would destroy any possible public interest in very short order. The rake would kill.

There's barely any sports bettor alive who would be able to thrive in a world of even 5% additional rake (essentially about -120 instead of -105 or -110), which is undoubtedly an optimistic assumption for the government haul -- before even considering that the leagues and players would have their hands out for tribute, much like the horsemen do now on simulcasting. Yes, some horseplayers can thrive in the world of 15-20% rake, but only by playing big overlays, which are highly infrequent with only two contestants in a game.

And if you thought liquidity was bad now, it would quickly get worse, grinding average players into sand much more ferociously than presently, making any numbers-driven player much more cautious at the window. And once handle fell, then of course, politicians would pressure for a higher rake to make up for lost revenue, just as they do on taxes. And speaking of taxes, don't forget about withholding on any meaningful hit.

No, thanks.

[Prop Man]

Is sports betting taxed in England in the betting shops? If so, what are the soccer vigs there relative to the NFL vigs here?

[PerpetualCzech]

Heaven forbid the government ever getting into the business of sports betting. The economics would destroy any possible public interest in very short order. The rake would kill.

There's barely any sports bettor alive who would be able to thrive in a world of even 5% additional rake

Why do you think the government would be interested in regulating the vig? Are there any other jurisdictions in the world you know of where this is an issue?

[Rudy1957]

Is sports betting taxed in England in the betting shops? If so, what are the soccer vigs there relative to the NFL vigs here?

Sports betting was taxed in England until 2001 at 9% of customer winnings (on each ticket), similar to the 5% rake I'm suggesting the US might do in the unlikely event sports betting were legalized. England pulled the tax in 2001 because UK bookies had moved all betting offshore to Gibraltar (a legal UK tax-shelter zone), in return getting the bookies to commit to paying income tax on their earnings -- much the way US casinos operate. Vigs among UK sports books are similar to the norm.


Why do you think the government would be interested in regulating the vig? Are there any other jurisdictions in the world you know of where this is an issue?

Not regulating the vig, adding to it via rake, like in horse racing. It's hard to imagine any political support to legalize sports betting in the US unless the rake was meaningful, which would necessarily be on top of vig, not instead of vig, or else it would essentially be coming out of the bookmaker's hide.

The only case for reasonable rake would be similar to the supply side argument for tax cuts -- that lower marginal tax rates stimulates economic activity, creating a higher total number of tax dollars paid. That concept also worked when sports betting was first legalized in Vegas in the 1970's. Initially, the federal tax rate was 10% on wagers, quickly reduced to 2%, then to 0.25% in the 80's, and later (I believe) folded into the casino revenue tax rate, which I think is around 6% of win. Given that the low-tax crowd is in short supply in Washington now, favorable treatment would be highly unlikely.

[PerpetualCzech]

It's hard to imagine any political support to legalize sports betting in the US unless the rake was meaningful

It's not hard for me to imagine a regulated sports betting industry where there is NO rake from the gov't. I think it's pretty much what happens in any other country that regulates sports betting (e.g. UK and Aussie). That's why I asked whether you knew of any other jurisdiction where the regulatory body takes a direct cut from each bet.

EDIT: I wrote this before I saw your response to Prop Man. Are you sure? Are there any UK readers here that can confirm the gov't takes a cut out of every bet you make? Clint?

[superdink]

first of all sports betting is legal in nevada,how far fetched would it be to make it MORE legal.
it will only happen if poker goes first.the government will do cartwheels with the profits from legal poker compared to lotteries and horse racing.not to mention dogs and even jai alai.then the greed factor comes in and there you go.
as far as the take,i highly doubt that they will be the bookmakers.looking for a cut seems more reasonable.you know there is a bookie stamp in texas,right?

[Jon in Oakland]

you know there is a bookie stamp in texas,right?

What's a bookie stamp?

[custer]

Who is Mason and what's a cross link?

Mason is Mason Malmuth who runs twoplustwo. A cross link is you put his site on a links page and he puts yours on his link page.

[Clint Westwood]

It's not hard for me to imagine a regulated sports betting industry where there is NO rake from the gov't. I think it's pretty much what happens in any other country that regulates sports betting (e.g. UK and Aussie). That's why I asked whether you knew of any other jurisdiction where the regulatory body takes a direct cut from each bet.

EDIT: I wrote this before I saw your response to Prop Man. Are you sure? Are there any UK readers here that can confirm the gov't takes a cut out of every bet you make? Clint?


A categoric 'no' to this, PC. The books are charged 15% on their gross profits but the player pays nothing personally, win or lose.

To Rudy 1957, just to expand your recap a little, the tax rate prior to abolishment was payable either on your original stake or on your return. It used to be 10% as well, before being lowered to 9% shortly before it was scrapped entirely. It was probably too hard to work out 9% of bet x for most people anyway!