The end of online gambling is near

Sportsbook bettors are not organized, but the leagues and lawmakers are - there is a lot that has to happen before this happens.

________________________________________________________

The NFL wouldnt be near as big as it is now without sports betting. 

The US is becoming heavily regulated by the Feds ...who want in your life in the worst way.. I live in VA and Goodlatte and his buddy FRank Wolf , who has a problem with OTB's, are to blame .

I stopped in 2006 and got back in when Covers gave me a free $100 account   in 2010 and i've cashed out 3 times .. have a little left ..so i will wait and see what transpires.. but this was a Republican -backed deal in 2006 ...Barney Frank of all people want to help us.. Over-Regulation sucks

Quote Originally Posted by TRAIN69:



Why would the NFL oppose gambling? A decent percentage of their "fan base" is people that watch games simply because they bet on it. Take away online and vegas and I gaurantee you that television rating drop significantly.

Guilty. 

I get the NFL Ticket Sports-pack every year but I wouldn't if I wasn't betting on the games.

Not just for the rush of watching your bet win or lose but to cap for future bets also.....I'll never understand how some people just cap through #s without watching these games and rely  on a scoreboard ,especially halves and quarters unaware of injuries,fouls,weather conditions,ejections,or benchings to name a few.

Government run gambling?. Not likely...Ever seen......

  Pro-line Odds.

Your daily newspaper has the ODDS (Fav & Dog) on every game! 

What does that tell you?

Even the announcers know the odds of the game they are calling.

Al Michaels is notorious for seeing a late meaningless score as a win or loss to a totals bettor.

Do you even know how govt works?  What the hell does any of that stuff have to do with the justice dept enforcing laws that the piece of shit republicans force fed all of us? No matter who was President right now, the justice dept would be enforcing these laws.

There's always online horse racing guys.      Completely legal.

Start learning how to read the Daily Racing Form.   

Of course most of you degenerates probably already know how to read the Form.   

Yeah, if you want to bet in to parimutuel lines at 20% house hold compared to 4.5% house hold even at -110 in sports.

Horse racing is a losers proposition.  Nobody wins, I dont care who you are.  You cant beat 20% house hold - not only that - you cant beat lines that adjust when you bet 100 bucks on it because the markets are so shallow.  Bet 100 bucks to win on a typical horse race and your odds move - so not only do you have to beat 20% house hold - you have to beat the disadvantage you are giving yourself by making a wager in the first place!

Heres the thing - and I guess I should articluate it maybe a little bit better:

There will always be places to bet if you want to bet.

But, if you are like me - you make money by having the following conditions - and these are required:

1.  Free market with competitve available lines amongs dozens of options of SB's.
2.  Free movement of funds between books and home banks
3.  Risk of forfeiture of money low due to books going under or confiscation.

You cannot accomplish those three things as an American bettor (unless you set up an offshore presence).  In fact, you cant accomplish ANY ONE of those.  Up until 2006 we had ALL of those.

So this post is not telling anyone that there wont be a sportsbook somewhere that is always willing to take a deposit and allow you to bet, or find a track to bet at, or a local.  This post is saying that if you relied on the 3 things listed above in your method - you are screwed.

If you choose to keep money at Greek or BM, or any other SB that accepts Americans, you are PAYING A FEE FOR RISK.  Risk is higher than ever, and if you are willing to accept that risk, there is a cost to it.  Im not telling you not to do it (as I have been asked several times in this thread "should I take my money out") - I am simply telling you that you have to evaluate your risk tolerance - because pretending that there is no risk is silly.

You cant compete across sportsbooks for lines, you cant assure getting the lowest line available because you only have a couple of options, you cant move money freely and there is a cost and a risk cost to doing so that has never been higher - throw those things together and you have a recipe for non-profitabliity.  I cant see how you can beat that longterm.

Can you go set yourself up in a foreign country with banking, address, and have sportsbooks like Pinnacle, Betfair, Matchbook etc and insulate yoursel?  Yes.  Does the average person want or have the means to do that?  No.

From my point of view (opinion) - I dont know how anyone can make money doing this betting in to -110 lines, with very little competitiion for diversity of spreads, no exchange marketplace, no way to move money freely, and added risk cost.  It seems impossible to me.  The threshold is just way too high, out of the range of mortal handicappers to win longterm.

So make your own decisions.  Keep your eyes and ears open.  I wouldnt be surprised if these SB's were shut down tomorrow, and I wouldnt be surprised if they were open in 10 years.  The US govt might not be too interested in them because sportsbetting is not going to be legalized anytime soon - and this was just a Hiroshima move to clear the way for the rebuilding contract to be issued to the corporate casinos - who now have a clean slate.  But none of this matters to the guy who is trying to be profitable, and finds that the landscape is like trying to play ice hockey on a frozen waterfall.

Kapono -

I dont know much about the inner workings of SB's.  I do know that they are not run by rocket scientists and beacons of legitimate business.  I also know that poker sites and SB's share processors, and processor techniques.

I think the biggest protection SB's have is that the DOJ might deem them just too small to even matter right now, and that they dont fit the profile of what their objective is - which I feel is to clear the way for corporate legalization.

But dont you think the DOJ has experimented with sending the same WU's you do?  Dont you think they know that Michael Jackson Gonzalez is not a real person living in the Philippines and that the SB's have set up a network of WU processors who give out dummy names?  Dont you think they could and would squash this if they wanted to and felt the time was right?

Once again, you the sender are in no danger - but the risk here is simply knowing that there are lots of Jamie Moyer fastballs sitting belt high waiting for the DOJ to hit out of the park when they want to.  This is my opinion, I have nothing concrete to back this up other than my own observations - but I think you have to be in serious denial to assume that if the DOJ wanted to that they couldnt unravel this ball of yarn anytime they wanted to.