[jjgold]

It’s good for vacationers and also the casual player but any serious or semi serious type player its worthless

[mrpapageorgio]

Transcript of the oral arguments: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_ar...6-476_4fb4.pdf

[jjgold]

I wish Meadowlands Racetrack was going to have it

Now that would of been fukkin packed daily because NY City 15 minutes away and heavily populated area

[Hman]

I'm curious to hear you guys' opinions on this:


There are approximately 30 other states supporting & fighting dude by side New Jerseys's in court Vs PASPA & the sports leagues.

Let's say NJ & Co win & legalization begins.

What about some of the others who have sat idle on their azzes letting these other states do all of the work?

Like vultures looking to take advantage after everyone else has carried your load.

I say piss off to the other states who aren't involved in this fight.

[Sam Odom]

d2bets and other Libs been talking shit about 'State Rights' for years

[Hman]

Why is this relevant when you can sit on your couch and bet offshore?

Thanks.

I'd rather bet offshore. Reduced juice, bonuses, rewards, and bitcoin make offshore 1000x more appealing to me.

It's a domino effect.

There are various ways that Offshore can benefit from legalization.

Many could find a piece of the pie in the states assisting in start-ups & long term running of sports books, all while remaining in business offshore.

If legalization happens if will bring light to the hobby to the percentage of ppl who currently don't bet on sports.

All of this means that over time there is going to be competition.

Bonuses like we used to see will return.

Offshore will benefit from legalization as ppl will have choices.

Moving money will become easier as it will be necessary to lift some restrictions in order for ppl in the states to make transactions with legal books, which will open the door for ways offshore can take advantage.

Sports betting legalization is a win for everyone.

The fans, the bettors, the states, and yes, even Offshore.

[jjgold]

good stuff HMAN

Its a win win for USA, Offshore and SBR

I WANT TO BE ADMINISTRATOR AT SBR IF THIS HAPPENS

[mrpapageorgio]

good stuff HMAN

Its a win win for USA, Offshore and SBR

I WANT TO BE ADMINISTRATOR AT SBR IF THIS HAPPENS

It's a win for the better offshores, but I think a lot of the lower tier offshores will go under within a few years assuming PASPA is struck down since the better ones will improve to stay competitive against on shore books and leave the lower ones in the dust.

[Hman]

It's a win for the better offshores, but I think a lot of the lower tier offshores will go under within a few years assuming PASPA is struck down since the better ones will improve to stay competitive against on shore books and leave the lower ones in the dust.

Fair assessment

[Hman]

The Aftermath Of The NJ Sports Betting Case: Trying To Count SCOTUS Justices’ Votes
Dustin Gouker, Dec 5, 2017

A former colleague pointed out to me that covering a US Supreme Court case is not that much different from covering sports, which I have done for most of my adult life.

Granted, it would have helped to have a degree in constitutional law or a better read on interpreting what the SCOTUS justices say. But watching the oral arguments from Christie vs. NCAA — the case about the possible legalization New Jersey sports betting and the constitutionality of the federal sports wagering ban — on Monday felt somewhat familiar.

At the end of the day, Monday was about scorekeeping, without an actual scoreboard. It was about who won and who lost.
Yes, people are interested in the underlying constitutional issues and what the court finds when it comes to federalism and states’ rights. But more, people were interested in what the hour of arguments meant for New Jersey’s underlying chances of winning or losing.

My sense of things was that the NCAA’s side — which wants to keep the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act in place — faced more and tougher questioning than New Jersey’s side of things. Several justices seemed far more skeptical of the NCAA’s argument than Christie’s.

That was a sentiment shared by many, from the non-lawyers, to the gaming and other attorneys in the room, to the media members that cover SCOTUS for a living.
All that being said, here’s some of the handicapping and justice counting that we’ve seen about the final outcome.

Who was talking to whom in Christie vs. NCAA?

One of the most compelling arguments I saw about how the justices was from ESPN, who talked with Dr. Adam Feldman. He founded a quantitative research site about SCOTUS:

Here’s what he had to say; Ted Olson represented New Jersey, while Paul Clement represented the NCAA:
The justices also tend to vote against the side they interact with more. Here, while Justices Sotomayor and Kagan were more engaged with Olson, Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Kennedy, Gorsuch and Samuel Alito were more active in the discussion with Clement.

Although Justice Thomas hardly ever speaks during oral arguments, he tends to vote with the Court’s right wing, which includes Justices Alito, Roberts and Gorsuch, and so if they all vote against the sports leagues we can expect Justice Thomas to as well.
That gets us to 6-3, which was a common vote that many put out there after Monday’s arguments.

Justices for NJ?

Many major news media organizations have people dedicated to following what happens at SCOTUS. That makes sense because many of the most important and controversial issues in the US eventually find their way to the nation’s highest court.
Those journalists cover SCOTUS day in and day out, and are used to trying to handicap what they would do. So where did they come down?

Washington Post

Headline: N.J. argues that it can legalize sports betting, and Supreme Court seems to agree
A majority of the Supreme Court seemed ready Monday to allow New Jersey to proceed with its plan to legalize sports betting at casinos and racetracks…
The Post put Chief Justice John Roberts, along with justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Stephen Breyer and Clarence Thomas in the camp likely siding with New Jersey.

New York Times

Headline: Justices Skeptical of Sports Gambling Ban
The Times didn’t do any specific vote counting, but it also had a majority in New Jersey’s camp. Most of the vote counting around multiple media outlets included Justice Anthony Kennedy on NJ’s side, as well, which the NYT appeared to do.
A majority of the justices indicated that the law had crossed a constitutional line by requiring states to do the bidding of the federal government.

Also…

Others also agreed that the Court was leaning NJ’s way:
NPR’s Nina Totenberg: “When all was said and done, it looked very much as though five or more justices had serious doubts about the current law.”

Associated Press’ Jessica Gresko: “In a case being closely watched by states interested in allowing betting on sports, the Supreme Court indicated a willingness Monday to side with New Jersey’s effort to permit sports gambling.”
NBC’s Pete Williams: “The billions spent on legal sports betting in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas. But the U.S. Supreme Court seemed prepared Monday to bust Nevada’s monopoly.”

Non-SCOTUS media

Similar to the SCOTUS media, lawyers who have followed this case or parachuted in largely handicapped it for New Jersey:
Andrew Brandt, Sports Illustrated: “If pressed to hazard an informed call, I would predict a 6-3 judgment in favor of New Jersey.”
Cato Insitute: “By my best count, the vote should be 6-3, with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan in dissent.”
More vote counting here.

[B]Groupthink, or an actual good day for NJ?[B]

You could theorize the people in the room were overly optimistic for New Jersey’s chances, especially since the state has never won in this case in the lower courts.
However, it’s pretty difficult to be dismissive of a lot of people coming to the same conclusions, often independently. While the gaming industry and lawyers can definitely be victims of groupthink, the SCOTUS media came to the same conclusion in assessing New Jersey’s chances outside of that bubble.
I think it all means we can safely say make the over/under on justices siding with New Jersey in the final decision — either with a full repeal of PASPA or a narrower victory — is 5.5.
And that means the odds have certainly been tipped more heavily in New Jersey’s favor.

That still doesn’t mean NJ will win

Counting votes just based on an hour of oral arguments is still dicey business.
A lot will go on before we finally hear a decision, likely sometime in the first half of 2018. The justices will confer behind the scenes on the case, and try to get to a decision that the majority of the court agrees with.
Simply put: Don’t take out a second mortgage betting on New Jersey to be the ultimate victory in Christie vs. NCAA.

[bonzaii]

[unluckysob]

A dozen casinos in Mississippi are ready to accept sports wagers. It will be BIG in the south. We love college football.

[Thor4140]

It’s good for vacationers and also the casual player but any serious or semi serious type player its worthless

So those jammed sports books on Saturdays and Sunday's in Vegas are just a Mirage? Nothing better, than watching the games on those big screen with a bunch of buddies gambling it up. I guess you can do it your way sitting all alone playing on your computer with chips all over your shirt eating ur pre packaged lunch meat lol.

[Thor4140]

I don't care if the Players side had the best lawyers in the world because that basically means nothing. It is all about who has the more important lobbyist and until these leagues get their cash (cut)this isn't happening. That is why it hasn't happen this long. These leagues own Vegas sports books and you are a fool if u think otherwise.

[mrpapageorgio]

Audio of SCOTUS oral arguments for those interested:

https://sportshandle.com/audio-oral-...ports-betting/

[jjgold]

Good link

Thanks

[Hman]

Audio of SCOTUS oral arguments for those interested:

https://sportshandle.com/audio-oral-...ports-betting/

Good link

Thanks

Yep agreed jj good stuff thanks

[Hman]

National sports gambling coming, it will be good for colleges and NCAA needs to be ready
By Dan Wolken, USA Today
December 7, 2017


NEW YORK — Finding an NCAA rule that lacks common sense isn’t particularly challenging these days. But as the Supreme Court considers a case that effectively would open the door to legalized sports gambling nationwide, the NCAA’s prohibition on playing championships in Las Vegas still stands as the undisputed champion of misguided purity.

The NCAA long has been officially against sports gambling, even to the point of relocating some championship events from New Jersey in 2012 when the state passed a law that allowed wagering on college events. Even while conferences like the Pac-12 and Mountain West have played their postseason basketball tournaments in Las Vegas for several years without incident, the NCAA has continued to clutch its pearls, excluding the country’s most fan-friendly city from hosting NCAA tournament games and other national championships.

While the NCAA’s stance on Las Vegas has served little purpose other than fulfilling a sense of sanctimony, its hand may soon be forced. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday on New Jersey’s right to authorize sports wagering, setting the stage for the 25-year old Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PAPSA) to potentially be overturned.


If that law is struck down and Nevada no longer has exclusive rights to authorize sports betting, the NCAA likely would have to abandon one of its most controversial bylaws as more states make it legal.

And once that happens, it probably wouldn’t take long for Las Vegas to become an epicenter of college sports, potentially hosting College Football Playoff championship games and Final Fours.

“It’s inevitable,” said Jim Livengood, a former athletics director at Arizona and UNLV and current Las Vegas resident. “It’s not about gaming, it’s about how you regulate it. I know it’s self-serving, but Vegas regulates it as well as anybody. This isn’t an if — it’s a when. It’s going to happen.”

The potential for a vastly different environment around gambling was a big topic in New York this week at the Learfield Intercollegiate Athletics Forum, where hundreds of college sports leaders gathered for panel discussions on an array of topics affecting their business.

NCAA President Mark Emmert made an appearance here Wednesday and suggested the possibility of a “carve out” if PAPSA is struck down, essentially lobbying states to exclude college sports if gambling becomes legal nationwide.

That would be a mistake.

Sports gambling is good for college sports. It drives interest and popularity. And if it’s going to be legalized nationwide, the smart and progressive leagues will find a way to capitalize on it rather than fight it and get left in the dust.

If colleges and conferences aren’t considering the possibility that it might become normal for fans to stop by the betting parlor on their way to the tailgate every Saturday, they don’t understand their customers, many of whom already bet their games illegally or online.

“I’m certainly interested in what that outcome might be,” SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey said. “I haven’t had time to look at the information from the arguments, and we’ll await that decision. I don’t know that I predict any adjustments, per se, on our side, but I also wouldn’t assume there won’t be some level of attention to the realities that might come from that decision if it alters it for us. (We’re) attentive, and the decision could certainly have an impact on our culture broadly and that affects the sporting culture. But it’s difficult to sit here and effectively plan without having a decision.”

Said Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby: “We’ve certainly given it a lot of thought and have considered the implications. I think it depends a little bit on what the law looks like, but I’m not convinced that’s necessarily the direction (the Supreme Court is) going to go.”

Like many elements of the NCAA’s “amateurism” model, nobody has provided a sufficient explanation for why sports gambling and college sports can’t coexist in the same geographical area — especially when they already do.


The NCAA can’t control where conferences hold their big events, so naturally many of them are drawn to Las Vegas because that’s where the market tells them to go. Potential showcase events such as the college baseball regionals, the women’s basketball Final Four or hockey’s Frozen Four naturally would draw in more fans just because of the venue.

And as both the NHL and NFL move franchises into Las Vegas, it should be obvious by now that the NCAA has everything to gain and little to lose by following suit.

While the NCAA certainly should be proactive in addressing whether its own athletes and coaches are gambling on sports — an issue it studies with an anonymous survey every four years — that has little to do with where games are played.

Moreover, the correlation between the physical location of a legal sports book and whether an outcome is compromised by gambling is flimsy at best. A history of NCAA point-shaving scandals from San Diego in 2011 to Northwestern in 1995 to Tulane in 1985 to Boston College in 1978 would tell you that breaches of integrity are not confined to any particular time or place.

And as much as they might fight it, people at the NCAA are smart enough to know that a major change in sports gambling laws ultimately will usurp any attempt to remove events from states that make it legal to wager on their games.

“We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it,” Emmert said. “Obviously, if you wind up with sport gambling everywhere in the country then we’re not going to stop playing championships. We’ll play wherever we have to. But we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it.”

The NCAA, however, should be in position here to lead rather than follow. Its conferences already have proved that sports gambling can coexist with major events. The fear of gambling might give college presidents the warm fuzzies and play well at committee meetings, but it utterly lacks consistency.

It takes a lot to move the NCAA toward common sense, but this time, the Supreme Court just might be in position to do it.

[Hman]

New jersey been changing the game, all aboard

NJ deserves applause as they certainly have changed the game like you said.

[jjgold]

can you imagine all the bums that will be in these Jerseys places betting $5 parlay cards?

All Vegas local shops look like a homeless shelter