SCOTUS just overturned the ban on sports betting 7-2

[Obliviax]

I've only used bitcoin to transfer between offshore accounts. Is it pretty simple to convert bitcoin to cash and deposit in a bank acct?

bitcoin, as are all cryptocurrencies, are being watched very, very closely by the Feds. Why? Money laundering.

there is some notion that bitcoin will be self policing...in other words, you can go buy $1m of bitcoin and overnight it goes down to $400k (or to $1.4k). But the feds are going to be more active, you can count on it. Basically, the rule is that moving bitcoin is no different than moving US$. If you move $1m of bitcoin, you need to report $1m of US$ movement. They are actively prosecuting but it is hard to track.

 

[Kmase21]

I've only used bitcoin to transfer between offshore accounts. Is it pretty simple to convert bitcoin to cash and deposit in a bank acct?

I was always unsure of this because I dont know what to make of bitcoin or how I would convert it. Whenever withdrawing they would always call/e-mail me to try and do the bitcoin way, I would politely decline and wait 4 weeks for Mr. Courier.

 

[Erial_Lion]

I've only used bitcoin to transfer between offshore accounts. Is it pretty simple to convert bitcoin to cash and deposit in a bank acct?

Yes, it’s pretty easy. It can take 4-5 days to move from a book to an “intermediate” wallet (to scrub the transaction) to a primary wallet to your bank, so those that are looking for a “quick” method would avoid. But if you’re in it for the long haul, it’s worthwhile (plus, as you mentioned, it’s a great method to move between books if you do this seriously and need to balance between several books)

 

[Grant Green]

Yes, it’s pretty easy. It can take 4-5 days to move from a book to an “intermediate” wallet (to scrub the transaction) to a primary wallet to your bank, so those that are looking for a “quick” method would avoid. But if you’re in it for the long haul, it’s worthwhile (plus, as you mentioned, it’s a great method to move between books if you do this seriously and need to balance between several books)

Thanks, I figured. I'm just looking to build the bankroll for a while, so I probably won't withdrawal in the near future. Nice to know that it is just a matter of waiting for a number of days.

 

[Erial_Lion]

Thanks, I figured. I'm just looking to build the bankroll for a while, so I probably won't withdrawal in the near future. Nice to know that it is just a matter of waiting for a number of days.

Many are scared off by the volatility of Bitcoin, but you’re not actually keeping your $ in it for very long, as price fluctuations only matter from the time it arrives from the book until the time you initiate the transaction to your bank account, which can usually be done on an hour or two (and the fluctuations go both ways, sometimes you’ll get a hundred more than expected, sometimes a hundred less).

 

[NittPicker]

Proving DUIs based on Marijuana is much more difficult than alcohol. There are no currently accepted standards for how much THC in the system is too much. And yes, here in California, the number of suspected Under the Influence caused accidents is up since MJ has been made legal for recreational use.

Not really. The officer making contact needs to observe whether or not the individual is incapable of safe driving. SFSTs are an important part of that and those tests are failed by both drunk and high people. Officers can easily detect the associated odors in the vehicle as well as observe physical manifestations of impairment. And while there is no legal limit per se for THC, a combination of all the above can make unsafe operation easy to prove. As for me, I always made sure the SFSTs were administered as recommended by NHTSA and videotaped. Proof of the driver stumbling around would usually be enough to prove they were incapable of safe driving. Chemical test results were icing on the cake.

 

[Obliviax]

Not really. The officer making contact needs to observe whether or not the individual is incapable of safe driving. SFSTs are an important part of that and those tests are failed by both drunk and high people. Officers can easily detect the associated odors in the vehicle as well as observe physical manifestations of impairment. And while there is no legal limit per se for THC, a combination of all the above can make unsafe operation easy to prove. As for me, I always made sure the SFSTs were administered as recommended by NHTSA and videotaped. Proof of the driver stumbling around would usually be enough to prove they were incapable of safe driving. Chemical test results were icing on the cake.

These arrests are much more commonly overthrown and "observation" is highly speculative. If I were a judge, I wouldn't allow them knowing what I know about prosecutors these days. I can tell you, with some level of certainty, my wife would get any charges thrown out if the police's only evidence was their "observation".

 

[kts136]

Not really. The officer making contact needs to observe whether or not the individual is incapable of safe driving. SFSTs are an important part of that and those tests are failed by both drunk and high people. Officers can easily detect the associated odors in the vehicle as well as observe physical manifestations of impairment. And while there is no legal limit per se for THC, a combination of all the above can make unsafe operation easy to prove. As for me, I always made sure the SFSTs were administered as recommended by NHTSA and videotaped. Proof of the driver stumbling around would usually be enough to prove they were incapable of safe driving. Chemical test results were icing on the cake.

You would still have to "prove" that person is driving under the influence, would you not? Yes a stumble during a field test may be an indication someone is impaired, but its not actual proof of such a thing. What if the person just has terrible balance to begin with or an injury of some sort or any number of reasons/excuses they could give for the stumble. If I stumble during a DUI check, they get out the breathalyzer for further proof and confirmation. I don't believe there is currently any sort of device for that now, but I could be wrong.

 

[SR108]

I believe it includes college.

Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court cleared the way on Monday for states to legalize sports betting, striking down a 1992 federal law that had prohibited most states from authorizing sports betting.

The 6-3 ruling is a victory for New Jersey and other states who have considered allowing sports gambling as a way to encourage tourism and tax revenue. The NCAA, NFL and NBA had backed the federal prohibition.

The court said the federal law violated constitutional principles limiting the federal government from controlling state policy, unconstitutionally forcing states to prohibit sports betting under their own laws.....

The controversy started in 2011, when New Jersey voters approved a measure to legalize sports betting to help the casino industries in a faltering economy. But the state law was immediately challenged by professional sports leagues and the NCAA, which pointed to a federal law passed in 1992 that bans state sports betting with some exceptions.​

yep, social costs to both gambling and weed.

 

[NittPicker]

These arrests are much more commonly overthrown and "observation" is highly speculative. If I were a judge, I wouldn't allow them knowing what I know about prosecutors these days. I can tell you, with some level of certainty, my wife would get any charges thrown out if the police's only evidence was their "observation".

As I wrote, observations are backed up by videotape of sobriety tests and other evidence. You are right though in that observations without corroboration won't go very far.

 

[NittPicker]

You would still have to "prove" that person is driving under the influence, would you not? Yes a stumble during a field test may be an indication someone is impaired, but its not actual proof of such a thing. What if the person just has terrible balance to begin with or an injury of some sort or any number of reasons/excuses they could give for the stumble. If I stumble during a DUI check, they get out the breathalyzer for further proof and confirmation. I don't believe there is currently any sort of device for that now, but I could be wrong.

One stumble doesn't mean much. The SFSTs developed by NHTSA require more than a couple missteps. As I wrote, a lot of things can come into play to prove unsafe driving even before a chemical test. If someone refuses a chemical test they will likely still be charged since by that time probable cause for an arrest has already been developed. Of course it's up to the DA how far they want to push the issue.

 

[First Last]

I think gamblers will be disappointed once they see the cut that states, municipalities, and teams start to demand just from the amount bet, independent of winnings. I wouldn't be surprised if Vegas (and perhaps Atlantic City) end up offering much better betting values than other states.

 

[Victor E. Bell]

Time for a Frank Sheeran post. Long past time. In the few years between sports gambling and being able to do it on line in PA, somebody is going to lease a corner "Ladbrokes" downtown (and surrounding environs) and obtain a license to print money.

 

[N&B4PSU]

7-2... you really have to question how 2 justices found it appropriate that ONE state (Nevada) reaps all the windfall from gambling while everyone else scratches their worthless.... tennis balls.

This was always the point... WHY was it ok for Nevada to clean up while everyone else suffered? Was some kind of deal cut decades ago when the LV casinos went from mob-orgs to "legit"?

Best guess is yes.

LV is in deep shit. In an effort to protect the casino sheikhs, comps are gonna get incredibly better in vegas.... fast. But no matter what they do, the $$$ is going to stray and revenue will go down.

Wonder what the vegas odds were for 9 justices disappearing prior to this decision?

 

[Aardvark86]

yeah...and it is not quite that simple. Do we "legalize" or just "de-criminalize?" How is access gained? Grown? Distributed? Taxed? Controlled?

Personally, I am not a big fan of people getting high and driving a car, forklift, driving a school bus, drill press or running a fracking drill. But I do recognize the health benefits. I recognize the "entertainment value" but not sure we want to condone something like this over exercise or activities that are helpful, not harmful. I feel the same way about gambling. There are lots of people that have done a lot of damage with their gambling habits. Loosening control doesn't seem to be for the common good.

I really don't feel strongly either way....but this isn't a "great thing". There are and will be consequences. Do the benefits outweigh the consequences? That is the real question.

The fact it hasn’t happened sooner tells you organized gambling is really not a good thing. I mean, casinos are grotesque, as are the areas where they are located. But it will happen because the states cannot resist any opportunity to grab money.

 

[Victor E. Bell]

Maybe they'll treat the players a little better with some competition.

 

[Victor E. Bell]

Was some kind of deal cut decades ago when the LV casinos went from mob-orgs to "legit"?

Best guess is yes.

You answered your own question. When gambling came to PA it was much the same, and PA almost literally rolled up the boardwalk on AC. They "literally" turned the lights out on many Jersey shops. I heard that when PA hit the gambling empire they were hurting Vegas. Jersey revenge. PA won't be far behind, especially when the Great Fathers of the Susquehanna figure out how much money is to be made and I mean personally.

 

[demlion]

I think gamblers will be disappointed once they see the cut that states, municipalities, and teams start to demand just from the amount bet, independent of winnings. I wouldn't be surprised if Vegas (and perhaps Atlantic City) end up offering much better betting values than other states.

When WV was passing its recent bill, lobbyists for the NFL, NBA and other sports leagues demanded an "integrity fee."

Think about that for just a moment. It is a fee, charged against the entire handle in the state, to assure the integrity of the games.
WV said no.
We live in a nation of bedbugs.

If cheese on your burger is 50 cents extra, and you decline to pay the cheese fee, you get no f#cking cheese. If you charge a fee for integrity, you haven't any to sell.
https://www.legalsportsreport.com/integrity-fee/

 

[Nitt1300]

You answered your own question. When gambling came to PA it was much the same, and PA almost literally rolled up the boardwalk on AC. They "literally" turned the lights out on many Jersey shops. I heard that when PA hit the gambling empire they were hurting Vegas. Jersey revenge. PA won't be far behind, especially when the Great Fathers of the Susquehanna figure out how much money is to be made and I mean personally.

I went to AC once. I find both Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun preferable- and the clientele for the most part doesn't look like they slept under the boardwalk

 

[SUPERTODD]

7-2... you really have to question how 2 justices found it appropriate that ONE state (Nevada) reaps all the windfall from gambling while everyone else scratches their worthless.... tennis balls.

This was always the point... WHY was it ok for Nevada to clean up while everyone else suffered? Was some kind of deal cut decades ago when the LV casinos went from mob-orgs to "legit"?

Best guess is yes.

LV is in deep shit. In an effort to protect the casino sheikhs, comps are gonna get incredibly better in vegas.... fast. But no matter what they do, the $$$ is going to stray and revenue will go down.

Wonder what the vegas odds were for 9 justices disappearing prior to this decision?

Hint: It’s the two justices who believe the Federal government has unlimited power and that the 10th Amendment does not exist.

 

[Aardvark86]

When WV was passing its recent bill, lobbyists for the NFL, NBA and other sports leagues demanded an "integrity fee."

Think about that for just a moment. It is a fee, charged against the entire handle in the state, to assure the integrity of the games.
WV said no.
We live in a nation of bedbugs.

If cheese on your burger is 50 cents extra, and you decline to pay the cheese fee, you get no f#cking cheese. If you charge a fee for integrity, you haven't any to sell.
https://www.legalsportsreport.com/integrity-fee/

Integrity fee is ludicrous (would you let them cheat otherwise?), but I could see some sort of fee. The wagering industry is after all basically trading off of their intellectual property. Hell, the players might even make that claim as to certain parlays.

 

[demlion]

Integrity fee is ludicrous (would you let them cheat otherwise?), but I could see some sort of fee. The wagering industry is after all basically trading off of their intellectual property. Hell, the players might even make that claim as to certain parlays.

I'd have to think about that. So if i go to a pro fb game and stay over in a hotel, does the hotel have to give 1% to the two teams?

Suppose I bet heavily, but never watch the games, and make my bets solely on what i read and see online. Should the fee go solely to newspapers and websites?

How about this: if you are a participant in a sporting event, and you make more money the greater the handle is, don't you have a betting interest in the outcome? And isn't that a problem?

The main point of my post, about which you dont disagree, is the term "integrity fee," itself, mocks the perception of their integrity.

 

[Obliviax]

local talker, big gambler, had a good point. He said there is a huge difference between gambling with cash (most of the sports gambling today) and on credit (which is where this will go). His point is that to gamble today, with a bookie, it is a cash business (or collateral). In Vegas, they have a ton of checks and balances on letting people over extend (my personal card was turned down, because I had no record, and a pitt boss asked me to talk to my friend, who was losing a ton). with internet sports gambling it could be quite a mess.

 

[hagberg]

Ooooh, we can bet on that

I'll drink to that!

 

[hagberg]

First, booze; Second marijuana; Third gambling....

...now we need to legalize prostitution.

View embedded media

I'd be willing to bet a round of drinks that nobody has ever been arrested for driving under the influence of just having had sex.

 

[PSU Dave]

the time of change in sports is upon us!

Brian Windhorst‏Verified account@WindhorstESPN 4m4 minutes ago
The Supreme Court has just ruled 7-2 to overturn the federal ban on sports gambling. It's a historic day in American sport.

Oh Boy!!!

 

[Obliviax]

When WV was passing its recent bill, lobbyists for the NFL, NBA and other sports leagues demanded an "integrity fee."

Think about that for just a moment. It is a fee, charged against the entire handle in the state, to assure the integrity of the games.
WV said no.
We live in a nation of bedbugs.

If cheese on your burger is 50 cents extra, and you decline to pay the cheese fee, you get no f#cking cheese. If you charge a fee for integrity, you haven't any to sell.
https://www.legalsportsreport.com/integrity-fee/

I would like to think that an integrity fee would be fees to cover the additional regulatory overhead associated with making sure they players aren't paid off to shave points. This is probably a bigger problem in the NCAA where kids are often poor (thinking John Hotrod Williams who lived in a dirt floor cabin while in school). But its probably just greed. I won't be betting anyway....odds are always against you.

 

[demlion]

I would like to think that an integrity fee would be fees to cover the additional regulatory overhead associated with making sure they players aren't paid off to shave points. This is probably a bigger problem in the NCAA where kids are often poor (thinking John Hotrod Williams who lived in a dirt floor cabin while in school). But its probably just greed. I won't be betting anyway....odds are always against you.

I am sure that is how they were pitching it....but calling it an "integrity fee" is just laughably poor wordsmithing. It suggests your integrity is already questionable.

My law partner says its like going to a restaurant and a burger is $5.00, plus a 2 dollar "anti-saliva fee."

As a person who doesn't bet, they just hurt their rep with me pretty badly. So, there are massive holes in their ALREADY EXISTING regulatory system which can only be fixed with $10 million of every billion bet.

Hotel room: $80. Hotel room with fire alarms: $85

 

[Grant Green]

odds are always against you.

That's not true at all for sports betting or poker.

 

[Obliviax]

I am sure that is how they were pitching it....but calling it an "integrity fee" is just laughably poor wordsmithing. It suggests your integrity is already questionable.

My law partner says its like going to a restaurant and a burger is $5.00, plus a 2 dollar "anti-saliva fee."

As a person who doesn't bet, they just hurt their rep with me pretty badly. So, there are massive holes in their ALREADY EXISTING regulatory system which can only be fixed with $10 million of every billion bet.

Hotel room: $80. Hotel room with fire alarms: $85

Yeah...just paid a $30 "Resort Fee" at the Cosmopolitan. At the same time, this is the NFL that got away with "personal seat licenses".

 

[Aardvark86]

I'd have to think about that. So if i go to a pro fb game and stay over in a hotel, does the hotel have to give 1% to the two teams?

Probably not since the hotel isn’t necessarily saying anything about the game. But it’s unavoidable on the lines and the ads.

Suppose I bet heavily, but never watch the games, and make my bets solely on what i read and see online. Should the fee go solely to newspapers and websites?

News is of course a first amendment issue. Website depends on nature of site. Advertising?

How about this: if you are a participant in a sporting event, and you make more money the greater the handle is, don't you have a betting interest in the outcome? And isn't that a problem?

No it’s addressed in your CBC with the league who is the up owner.

The main point of my post, about which you dont disagree, is the term "integrity fee," itself, mocks the perception of their integrity.

Agree. Unfortunately I embedded the detail in your post and am too lazy to deembed

 

[Aardvark86]

I'd be willing to bet a round of drinks that nobody has ever been arrested for driving under the influence of just having had sex.

No but I once heard of an adverse event in an ed drug trial where the subject broke his leg racing to his paramour after taking his pill.

 

[RussianEagle]

That's not true at all for sports betting or poker.

With sports books it is. They always charge vigorish. You probably need to win at least 55%, if not 60%, to break even. A huge house edge is built into all odds bets as well.

 

[Erial_Lion]

With sports books it is. They always charge vigorish. You probably need to win at least 55%, if not 60%, to break even. A huge house edge is built into all odds bets as well.

52.4% if you’re talking about a standard 20-cent line. If you’re just flipping coins, then sure, the “odds are against you”. But much like card counters or poker pros, there are those who can do better than flipping coins, and thus the odds aren’t “against” everyone.

 

[Grant Green]

With sports books it is. They always charge vigorish. You probably need to win at least 55%, if not 60%, to break even. A huge house edge is built into all odds bets as well.

What Erial said. In poker and sports betting, the odds of winning depend on the skill of the player unlike games of chance. there are plenty of pro bettors that hit over 54pct and make money.

If you do a lot of online betting, you can shop for better payout odds and decrease your break even to lower than 52.4.