Supreme Court delays New Jersey sports betting decision

Search

New member
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
10,462
Tokens


NEWARK, N.J. (AP) - Supporters of legalized sports gambling in New Jersey and several other states were handed a small victory Tuesday when the U.S. Supreme Court delayed a ruling on whether it will take up the states' challenge to a federal ban.


The court invited the solicitor general to file a brief on behalf of the government, which means a decision on whether the court will hear the challenge could take several more months.

The justices turned away more than 75 other appeals Tuesday, and the New Jersey case could have been among them. The court historically chooses to hear less than one percent of cases it considers.

New Jersey is challenging a 1992 federal law that restricts sports betting to Nevada and three other states that already had approved some form of wagering.

In recent briefs to the Supreme Court, lawyers representing the state have argued the federal law violates the Constitution by preventing states from repealing their own laws.

Several states including Mississippi, West Virginia, Arizona, Louisiana and Wisconsin have joined New Jersey's effort.
President-elect Donald J. Trump hasn't named a new solicitor general yet. When Trump officially takes office Friday, he will be the first U.S. president to have owned casinos. He has spoken favorably about legalizing sports gambling.

In a 2015 interview with Fox Sports 1, Trump indicated he wouldn't oppose sports betting or daily fantasy sports "because it's happening anyway."
Republican Gov. Chris Christie has championed New Jersey's effort in an attempt to use sports gambling revenues to bolster the sagging fortunes of the state's casino and horse racing industries.

The case has a lengthy legal history.

New Jersey voters overwhelmingly approved legalized sports betting in 2011 and the following year the state enacted a law allowing betting at racetracks and casinos.
The four major pro leagues and the NCAA sued to block that law from taking effect, arguing the integrity of their games would be threatened and there would be more incidences of game-fixing. A trial judge and, later, a federal appeals court ruled against the state.

Christie then signed a bill into law in 2014 that repealed prohibitions against sports gambling at casinos and racetracks. Repealing the laws instead of passing a new law was seen as a way to get around the federal law by not having sports gambling officially authorized by the state.
However, that challenge also met defeat at the hands of a federal judge in New Jersey and a federal appeals court in Philadelphia.

The Department of Justice, joining the sports leagues, has argued that since New Jersey's 2014 law authorizes gambling at racetracks and casinos by prohibiting it everywhere else, it amounts to state authorization and is a violation of the 1992 federal law.
Though exact figures are impossible to calculate, it's estimated tens of billions of dollars are bet illegally on sports annually in the U.S., with a sizable chunk handled by organized crime syndicates.

Nevada is the only state allowed to offer wagering on single games. Delaware, Montana and Oregon were exempted from the 1992 federal ban and are permitted to offer limited multi-game parlay pools.

Congress gave New Jersey a one-time opportunity to become the fifth state before the ban was enacted, but the state failed to pass a sports betting law in the required time window.
 

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
31,646
Tokens
If you think the social costs of casinos far outweigh the economic benefits then why would you want sports betting to be legal?

People gambling from their laptops and cell phones would likely have even worse costs.
 

New member
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
10,462
Tokens
If you think the social costs of casinos far outweigh the economic benefits then why would you want sports betting to be legal?

People gambling from their laptops and cell phones would likely have even worse costs.
to me they are apples and oranges....it is IMPOSSIBLE to beat a casino mid/long term...it is NOT impossible to win in sports wagering. (not saying it is easy)...in addition, for the most part people are going to bet on sports already, if they want to....if there were no casinos it is ALOT less likely someone is going to go to the speak easy down the street at "Jimmy's" house.
 

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
31,646
Tokens
to me they are apples and oranges....it is IMPOSSIBLE to beat a casino mid/long term...it is NOT impossible to win in sports wagering. (not saying it is easy)...in addition, for the most part people are going to bet on sports already, if they want to....if there were no casinos it is ALOT less likely someone is going to go to the speak easy down the street at "Jimmy's" house.

If people could bet on sports on their smart phones or laptops then the amount bet would go up significantly. If anything it would probably be more addictive given how much more entertaining sports betting can be compared to a table game. You can't really say "for the most part" people are going to bet on sports anyway, because for the most part a lot of people don't bet on sports since accessibility is limited.
 

New member
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
10,462
Tokens
If people could bet on sports on their smart phones or laptops then the amount bet would go up significantly. If anything it would probably be more addictive given how much more entertaining sports betting can be compared to a table game. You can't really say "for the most part" people are going to bet on sports anyway, because for the most part a lot of people don't bet on sports since accessibility is limited.
people DO bet on their smart phones and laptops....I really do not know anyone that wants to bet sports that doesn't already, do you?
 

New member
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
10,462
Tokens
If people could bet on sports on their smart phones or laptops then the amount bet would go up significantly. If anything it would probably be more addictive given how much more entertaining sports betting can be compared to a table game. You can't really say "for the most part" people are going to bet on sports anyway, because for the most part a lot of people don't bet on sports since accessibility is limited.
and for the record I am not saying casinos should be illegal, just saying they are bad.
 

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
31,646
Tokens
people DO bet on their smart phones and laptops....I really do not know anyone that wants to bet sports that doesn't already, do you?

If sports betting were legal you don't think it would be done at a magnitude 2-3-4x greater than it is now?

It hasn't been marketed towards people at all in the USA, of course people don't "want" to do it. Out of sight, out of mind. That would change drastically if legal.
 

New member
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
10,462
Tokens
If sports betting were legal you don't think it would be done at a magnitude 2-3-4x greater than it is now?

It hasn't been marketed towards people at all in the USA, of course people don't "want" to do it. Out of sight, out of mind. That would change drastically if legal.
yes it would increase for sure, but again I do not have a problem with that. IMO, sports betting takes skill....no skill in the world will help me at the craps table
 

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
31,646
Tokens
yes it would increase for sure, but again I do not have a problem with that. IMO, sports betting takes skill....no skill in the world will help me at the craps table

That works in theory but in practicality 98% are going to lose, which isn't much different than 100% of people losing. Maybe it makes people feel better about it being legal, but the impact is largely the same.

It isn't like the fact it is extremely hard to beat vs impossible to beat is going to lessen the impact on social costs.

So where is the apples to oranges really?
 
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
2,358
Tokens
to me they are apples and oranges....it is IMPOSSIBLE to beat a casino mid/long term...it is NOT impossible to win in sports wagering. (not saying it is easy)...in addition, for the most part people are going to bet on sports already, if they want to....if there were no casinos it is ALOT less likely someone is going to go to the speak easy down the street at "Jimmy's" house.

It is possible to beat the casino in the long run if you are smart enough.

(!) Sports Betting
(2) Poker
(3) BJ. Only if you are a AP and a card counter.

Other then that all odds are fixed. It's mathematically impossible.
 

New member
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
10,462
Tokens
That works in theory but in practicality 98% are going to lose, which isn't much different than 100% of people losing. Maybe it makes people feel better about it being legal, but the impact is largely the same.

It isn't like the fact it is extremely hard to beat vs impossible to beat is going to lessen the impact on social costs.

So where is the apples to oranges really?
Let's take $110.....apples takes that $110 to casino and loses it all, has no money to spend at the local cafe down the street...Oranges places two $55/50 wagers and goes 1-1 that day...he is out $5 and still has $105 to spend at the cafe. (he never really had a chance at the casino, but he did on the Falcons)
 

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
31,646
Tokens
MCM, other than very, very small pockets I think his point for this discussion largely holds up.

I just don't think it really matters much when calculating societal/social costs of widespread legalization.
 

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
31,646
Tokens
Let's take $110.....apples takes that $110 to casino and loses it all, has no money to spend at the local cafe down the street...Oranges places two $55/50 wagers and goes 1-1 that day...he is out $5 and still has $105 to spend at the cafe. (he never really had a chance at the casino, but he did on the Falcons)

Why would someone lose $110 at the casino but only lose $5 at sports betting? That is entirely dependent on their betting habits.

Unless they are just putting in significantly more volume with table games than sports betting.
 
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
2,358
Tokens
MCM, other than very, very small pockets I think his point for this discussion largely holds up.

I just don't think it really matters much when calculating societal/social costs of widespread legalization.

I agree. If you do go to the casino and play anything else you are just hoping for luck to be on your side.
 

New member
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
10,462
Tokens
Why would someone lose $110 at the casino but only lose $5 at sports betting? That is entirely dependent on their betting habits.

Unless they are just putting in significantly more volume with table games than sports betting.
I gave you the example...
 

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
31,646
Tokens
I gave you the example...

How is the example indicative of the average sports bettor or table game player?

Someone could bet a lot more than that very quickly. And people could lose a lot less than $110 playing table games.

In aggregate, both will lose between 2-4% of what they put up. Not 1 losing 5 bucks and the other 22x more than that.
 

New member
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
10,462
Tokens
How is the example indicative of the average sports bettor or table game player?

Someone could bet a lot more than that very quickly. And people could lose a lot less than $110 playing table games.

In aggregate, both will lose between 2-4% of what they put up. Not 1 losing 5 bucks and the other 22x more than that.
PF, so if YOUR life depended turning $100 into $200, would you bet $100 on the team of your choice tonight or take your chances at the casino?
 

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
31,646
Tokens
PF, so if YOUR life depended turning $100 into $200, would you bet $100 on the team of your choice tonight or take your chances at the casino?

Why do you think that example has anything to do with what we're talking about?

It doesn't.

Are you saying you think people will do much better at sports betting than they will at table games? Because on average they won't unless they are just betting a lot less $ because the event takes longer to complete or something to that effect. Which I guess is possible, but there are many events so it is unlikely.
 

New member
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
10,462
Tokens
Why do you think that example has anything to do with what we're talking about?

It doesn't.

Are you saying you think people will do much better at sports betting than they will at table games? Because on average they won't unless they are just betting a lot less $ because the event takes longer to complete or something to that effect. Which I guess is possible, but there are many events so it is unlikely.
yes, I have known and seen many gamblers/bettors in my life and the vast majority have alot more control and "win more" or "lose less" with sports betting than casino action.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,858
Messages
13,574,196
Members
100,878
Latest member
lisasdanceandexercise
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com