Prop 26 or Prop 27 for Californians

[Ghenghis Kahn]

Which one is better for us gamblers?

[thezbar]

Both props are likely to fail. The best thing for gamblers is for the powers to be to go back to the starting blocks and create something better. In the meanwhile just keep doing what you are doing. If someone truly desires to get a bet down they can find a way.

[BadLuckSanta]

Yes 27
No 26

Unless you want to drive to an Indian casino to place a bet

[KVB]

Depends on what you mean by "us gamblers" because they aren't all the same.

In the end, as someone who knows a little something about the industry, lol, I say NO on both.

Some more opinions from some of of us here...

https://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/players-talk/3708873-prop-27-calif-online-sports-betting.html

Dont' take a bad deal because your so desperate to get a deal. And that's kind of where the definition of "us gamblers" starts to matter. For many, the access they promise is not what it seems and the authors of the bills can suck by fat dikk.

In a nutshell. I have a lot more to say about it, including what I think of the tribes and their roll at this point, but it all points to NO on both from my camp and you know I would favor opening California.

As great as it would be, I don't think this is a time to be shortsighted.

[eidolon]

Depends on what you mean by "us gamblers" because they aren't all the same.

In the end, as someone who knows a little something about the industry, lol, I say NO on both.

Some more opinions from some of of us here...

https://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/players-talk/3708873-prop-27-calif-online-sports-betting.html

Dont' take a bad deal because your so desperate to get a deal. And that's kind of where the definition of "us gamblers" starts to matter. For many, the access they promise is not what it seems and the authors of the bills can suck by fat dikk.

In a nutshell. I have a lot more to say about it, including what I think of the tribes and their roll at this point, but it all points to NO on both from my camp and you know I would favor opening California.

As great as it would be, I don't think this is a time to be shortsighted.

I'm voting Yes on 27, and No on 26.
Fk Indian tribe casinos

[KVB]

Yeah, for the most part anybody wanting access to gambling should take 27 over 26.

But the authors of 27 aren't even real books, they're ad companies at his point, and bascially fantasy and online casino operators and their goal is to pinch out anybody else who might run book.

The marketplace will be horrible, unfair, and it won't be long you'll wish you had some place to bet in CA.

It's not the access they promise.

I say NO on both, I hate to say it, wish we had better to pick from, but I have to say NO.

[thezbar]

The wild card here is to Vote YES on both 26 and 27. Then let the Lawyers fight it out in court which indeed will happen should both pass.

[eidolon]

The wild card here is to Vote YES on both 26 and 27. Then let the Lawyers fight it out in court which indeed will happen should both pass.

I would think that Indian Casinos would win it. But I don't know the fine printing.

[KVB]

Honestly, I’d take 26 over 27 if I had to take one but I don’t want either.

Remember, 27 was written in part by the guys who publicly came out and said “we don’t want winners.”

Us winners should band together and say “we don’t fukking want you.”

Like I said in the other thread, this is one area where I’m glad California didn’t pave the way we don’t need to make the mistakes other states made.

[KVB]

Besides, in this day and age who in their right mind would pass a proposition written solely by corporations?

From that viewpoint it sounds so bad.

And it is.

[KVB]

California needs a gambling regulator who’s in on all these laws, and sadly the closest thing we have to that are the Indian tribes.

It’s a tough situation out here if we want a fair marketplace.

[thezbar]

California needs a gambling regulator who’s in on all these laws, and sadly the closest thing we have to that are the Indian tribes.

It’s a tough situation out here if we want a fair marketplace.

Exactly. A fair, open, and competive marketplace is in the best long term interest of the consumers {in this case those who would wager on sporting events in California.} Neither 26 or 27 does that.

[DrunkHorseplayer]

The commie rats in Cali don't like fair and open competition; it won't happen.

[batt33]

Yes 27
No 26

Unless you want to drive to an Indian casino to place a bet

WTF? READ the prop you got it backwards....... 27 limits it to a few... Indian conglomerates ... yeah not nations.....

[KVB]

It's refreshing to see some of these posts.

Being able to gamble and gamble soon like so many other states is such a carrot to dangle, we all want it.

But it's nice to see some long term thinking and ackowledgement that we need better.

California will probably vote them both down, but so much of it will be gambling paranoia and shit like that.

One commercial is from a concerned mom because every device will be a gambling device. Every device already is, and they could post up offshore easier than onshore. If her worry is that her son will gamble with DK, then he's got a fake ID, bank account, and ways to fund.

That mom has bigger worries, lol.

Legal adults can barely get past the shit, we think kids will? Voting yes would actually bring regulation to it all, something the concerned moms should applaud.

So yeah, there's a lot of bullshit out there and a lot of ignorance, but NO is NO, I suppose.

[jjgold]

The thing is when it goes down you got approx 5 more years before another vote

[KVB]

The thing is when it goes down you got approx 5 more years before another vote

Maybe two and that still sucks your point still stands.

What's worse, is that in two years they'll probably just throw the same exact garbage at us. The only hope is a shift in national landscape, one we are sort of already seeing, that will lead to different versions of the props.

That's why I talked in that other thread about heading up to Sacramento and lending some expertise on the issue.

They need help and I know how to help them. I don't think they want the help though. It sucks.

[KVB]

There's a dialysis center prop that keeps getting voted down and keeps showing up, virtually unchanged, just to get voted down again every two years, though it seems like every year.

We can't let that happen with gambling, we just can't.

There's too much at stake.

[7deuceoff$uit]

I am going yes on 27 and no on 26. I will take DK. Fanduel, etc over the tribes controlling it. Only upside to 26 passing IMO is that they will then allow real Craps instead of California Craps.

[Nate rasta]

I got a feeling somehow 26 passes.but 27 doesnt. Indian casinos would be nice to have to put some large future bets down

[eidolon]

Maybe two and that still sucks your point still stands.

What's worse, is that in two years they'll probably just throw the same exact garbage at us. The only hope is a shift in national landscape, one we are sort of already seeing, that will lead to different versions of the props.

That's why I talked in that other thread about heading up to Sacramento and lending some expertise on the issue.

They need help and I know how to help them. I don't think they want the help though. It sucks.

Unfortunately this is true. The people that have the driving power to put on the ballot are the tribes, and corporations.
Average Joe doesn't want to go out there and make it happen.

[209 Life]

No on 26

Yes on 27

[Hugh Madbrough]

I would just like to walk into a liquor store and place a bet on a kiosk. Kind of how they with the lottery. You place your bet and when you win you cash it out with the cashier.

[INVEGA MAN]

Word is neither have a chance in passing!!

[KVB]

I would just like to walk into a liquor store and place a bet on a kiosk. Kind of how they with the lottery. You place your bet and when you win you cash it out with the cashier.

Right, we all hear that. We all want that.

They have that in Canada, with parlays, but the odds are not good.

Would you pay -120 for spreads for the ability to walk into a liquor store and place a bet at a kiosk? It's a legit question and everyone is entitled to their own answer there for sure.

I use -120 as an example, but my point is just how much shorting can we tolerate before it's a bad deal?

The kiosk is good, but we need more competition out there so we don't get fixed onto -115 or worse spread odds.

[Nate rasta]

We're going to be stuck with offshore, Reno, Tahoe and a flight to Vegas

[thezbar]

Had the elected government officials represented the people instead of bowing to the lobbyist wishes in 2020 these props wouldn't even exist now. It's been reported 450 million dollars have been spent on Prop 27. All that figures to down the drain. What a waste.

[Hugh Madbrough]

Right, we all hear that. We all want that.

They have that in Canada, with parlays, but the odds are not good.

Would you pay -120 for spreads for the ability to walk into a liquor store and place a bet at a kiosk? It's a legit question and everyone is entitled to their own answer there for sure.

I use -120 as an example, but my point is just how much shorting can we tolerate before it's a bad deal?

The kiosk is good, but we need more competition out there so we don't get fixed onto -115 or worse spread odds.

That's a good question, bro. I would be fine with paying the $20 juice, if when I get a win I can cash out within 15 minutes in any liquor store. In the long run it adds up but at the same time, at least for me, it will limit me with the number of plays. The problem with me is when I go on deep runs, I make the mistake of switching up to leagues I know nothing about and think I'm still going to win. Are you a no on the -120 you put as an example.

[KVB]

That's a good question, bro. I would be fine with paying the $20 juice, if when I get a win I can cash out within 15 minutes in any liquor store. In the long run it adds up but at the same time, at least for me, it will limit me with the number of plays. The problem with me is when I go on deep runs, I make the mistake of switching up to leagues I know nothing about and think I'm still going to win. Are you a no on the -120 you put as an example.

I am absolutley a NO on that.

But most know I rely on this industry and those tight margins are very important to me. I want -105 or -108 and built all my business around the stable Vegas -110.

Over the long haul the -115 and -120 lines are a lot of erosion to me.

We need a fair marketplace, we need to be able to put a group together and start a book. But with 27, it would make it nearly impossible. The big corporations wrote it that way, to pinch everyone else out.

So sure, they don't have to pass their taxes onto us at -120, they can stay chill, but then the risk management becomes even tighter.

We run out of options quick.

I mention in that other thread that I quoted earlier in this thread...

...27 doesn't give us a very good betting landscape at all. 26 might give us a great one, temporarily, unless the tribes just dial into caesars, but it won't last.

I'm thinking NO to both, let's try again.

If the Tribes win, they might just dial into Nevada, but it's possible they start out clueless and exploitable.

It's possible.

But it would be shortlived and no reason to vote yes on 26.

[TheMetsSuck]

California is a joke

[Hugh Madbrough]

I am absolutley a NO on that.

But most know I rely on this industry and those tight margins are very important to me. I want -105 or -108 and built all my business around the stable Vegas -110.

Over the long haul the -115 and -120 lines are a lot of erosion to me.

We need a fair marketplace, we need to be able to put a group together and start a book. But with 27, it would make it nearly impossible. The big corporations wrote it that way, to pinch everyone else out.

So sure, they don't have to pass their taxes onto us at -120, they can stay chill, but then the risk management becomes even tighter.

We run out of options quick.

I mention in that other thread that I quoted earlier in this thread...



If the Tribes win, they might just dial into Nevada, but it's possible they start out clueless and exploitable.

It's possible.

But it would be shortlived and no reason to vote yes on 26.

Thanks for educating me on this, bro. You're right, in the long haul it does bleed, paying $100 on every five bets or extra $50 from the -110. It's funny how everyone talks about Vegas but some books don't give you the options that online books give you, also the tellers always have a bad attitude. It would be nice to one day be able to have a kiosk but like you mentioned KVB now is not the time, especially at the cost they want. Also I'm not on Draft Kings or Fan Duel but don't they take like a 40% cut.