News Round-up(10/2/2024)

 Wars and rumors of wars.......

Saying the quiet part out loud. - It's never been about stopping climate change. It's always been about a redistribution of income from wealthy nations to NGOs and other quasi-governmental firms who will then tell the poor what to do.

That's quite the increase. When you  have elected leaders who truly believe that property ownership is theft from the government then you get results such as these.  If you don't already have a plan for an exit strategy out of Harris County you should start planning one.

As a matter of fact, a Texas exit strategy might not be a bad idea. The problem, and their are many, with Texas Democrats right now is that they have been out of power for so long that they are angry, and are going to overreach and are going to make life miserable.  The best thing for Texas right now would be some balance. I do not think we're going to get that, and I think the reversal is going to be stunning. Mostly because of a lack of adults in any room in government.

The biggest news story people are not paying enough attention to. This could be a big deal. In large part because the head of the union appears to be a low-functioning idiot who cannot even remember his 3 main talking points without having people remind him of what they are. I don't begrudge them their pay requests, but fighting against technological upgrades is akin to an old man hollering at the clouds. For this to get resolved the union is going to have to appoint a leader who can speak into a microphone without spitting on the first three rows.

Did you watch the VP debate last night? I did not. Nor did I watch either of the two Presidential debates. Kamala is a tool, Trump is a narcissist. No matter who wins, America loses.

BadScience People can say whatever they want to say when there are no repercussions. 

Will the last business to leave California please turn off the lights? The problem with government by boogeyman is that you, eventually, will run out of boogeymen to blame all of your problems on.  Eventually the people will look to you as the culprit.  Of course, by then they're probably too poor and there are no jobs left to matter anyway.

I really hope that this is the last we hear of Anna Delvey

RIP Dikembe Mutombo One of the great Basketall big men and ambassador's of all time.  And one helluva commercial star.

RIP Pete Rose. One of the most controversial baseball figures of all time. Both one of the greatest hitters and, apparently, one of the worst betters to ever grace the game.  In an age where games are sponsored by FanDuel and DraftKings it's time to relent and put the man in the Hall of Fame. at this point the hypocrisy is through the roof.

And finally...

One of the reason's we continue argue about climate change is that the arguments of the climate warriors are based on lies and logical fallacies. No one involved in carbon capture is suggesting that it is a silver bullet that will 100% solve the problem, yet that is what the climate warriors are attesting. 

In fact, the world HAS made some progress on carbon reduction and, China, India and some other nations notwithstanding, the Western World has taken steps to reduce their carbon omissions. But the climate warriors want stupid goals like "zero carbon now" and "just stop oil" which would plunge the world into economic chaos, kill Billions, and knock us directly back to the dark ages. Perhaps they do want a return to the days with the Catholic Church was the font of all knowledge and truth?  Of course, this time around it would not be the Church, it would be the United Nations.

Think about how scary that thought is.

College Football 2022: Week 1 Recap (Hint: It's BAD)

 "I haven't seen an ass whipping that bad since someone put a banana down my pants and turned a monkey loose" - Uncle Eddie.

After a hot start, 2-0, with both West Virginia and Central Michigan (just) covering as underdogs, things started to unravel on Friday (Temple) and fell fully to shit on Saturday. 

I still don't think Nevada-Reno is any good, but man Texas State is awful. Boise State should have beaten Oregon State, but looked sloppy, and Houston, ah Houston.  What in the heck were you doing? Even SDSU blew it against Arizona, while breaking in their new stadium, on National TV.

I did salvage a little thanks to Coastal Carolina covering, and then a little more with a couple of smallish live bets, but it was not good.

Then came the LSU debacle, and a (needlessly tight) Clemson/Georgia Tech under (51.5 the total finished at 51) which looked for all of the world as if it was going to breeze in easy.  This, is why I frequently do NOT bet unders.  Fortunately I had to be up at 4:30AM to go to work the next day so I went to bed at the half and spared myself the sweat.

The good news is that there is a lot of season left to go, and many more opportunities to climb back out of this little hole that I've dug. 

The key is to not panic. Have faith in your system and your numbers. Don't overreact to week 1, but just tweak, and continue to tweak the model to filter our possible noise and correct errors. At least now we have some actual game data to consider.

Look, you're going to see a LOT of data from touts saying how well they did last weekend, and that this means you should buy their packages and basically give them your money. Don't buy it.  The way things are going you should have just faded me.

But, and this is important, I've had losing weekends before, and I'll have them again.  I've already jumped on 8 plays for next weekend early and I'm looking at one more, if my book will ever post the damn game.

Sports betting is fun, and it's work, but mostly fun. Bet within your means and we'll all be just fine.

Post-COVID Gambling: Why I'm Done with Las Vegas

Honestly, at this point, you can keep it.

Las Vegas has changed, almost entirely for the worse. I've spent a lot of time on here in recent months bemoaning bad odds, tightened (or non-existent) comps, increasing fees, declining properties, rising prices and a general loss of focus on customer service in Las Vegas that has all added up to what amounts to a large middle-finger to the traditional Las Vegas Visitor.

Enough with the gamblers, Huzzah! to the Day Club patrons, the pool partiers, the people who want to pay rack rate for a 3rd rate room. In short, those with little concern that they're being financially assaulted, willingly in most cases, for the illusion of luxury and 'hip' in a town that no longer possesses any of it.

Las Vegas has always been a magician's trick, an illusion that you were having something you are not, a high roller experience that was decidedly tacky. The odds always favored the house and Las Vegas has no time, or patience, for people who understand that fact. They don't want the person who wishes to come in, have a good time, gamble, and maybe enjoy a nice meal or three. What they are focusing on now is three-fold.

1. As stated prior: They want the party people, the people who have no issue (until it comes time to pay the credit card bill) slapping down $3500 for bottle service on an alcohol they can get for $40 (or less) at home. they want the girls in bikinis to awkwardly dance down the aisle to their overpriced cabana acting like they are excited (when they're really not, and it shows) to be drooled over by a group of 20 and 30-something men. They want people who are willing to over pay for "exclusive" access to Day Clubs, where DJs pump out music and women dance and kiss each other in hopes of getting in on the liquor bottle gravy train. (Trust me, if you get bottle service in Las Vegas there will be enough women coming by and flirting with you for free drinks you will not get a sip yourself.  They'll take the drink and you'll never see them again, but at least they pay attention to you I guess?) Don't get me wrong, men try this as well, but from what I've seen they usually get told no and are encouraged by security to move on. Las Vegas pools and day clubs have morphed into a giant faux-dating game where the Bros think they have a chance.

2. The bone idiot: People who will gladly play 000 Roulette or 6:5 Blackjack with horrible odds or continually plunk money into slots set at the State minimum all while thinking they are James Bond instead not realizing they are the sucker at the table. Yes, people occasionally win, and when they do the casinos broadcast it far and wide, but almost everyone else loses, and never has a chance. Even Las Vegas sports books have joined the trend of kicking out, or severely limiting, punters who do even minimal research and try to win. They want people in their casinos who want to give them their money. Period end of story.

3. The violent: Yes, it's true. Vegas has become an unsafe mess since reopening from the pandemic. Almost daily tales of shootings, stabbings, fights on the strip. Endless videos of large groups getting into fisticuffs and, eventually, shots fired. This is not limited to the Strip, but to almost every tourist area. The fact is that Las Vegas is incapable of policing itself and is now an unsafe town.

Because of all of this Mrs. TPM and I will be going to Las Vegas for our Birthday trip in October, in part because it's already booked, and we'll stay one night on the Strip, two nights Downtown, and two nights off-strip, and then we're going to say goodbye for a while. Possibly a long while.

Until Las Vegas reverses course I can no longer recommend it as a travel destination. In fact, I would urge you to stay away. ONLY when the casinos start to lose significant business will they even consider changing course.

We may just be a small raindrop in the Las Vegas ocean, but that's one less raindrop they're going to see.

Good Bye Las Vegas. It's not me, it's you.

Post-COVID Gambling: Whither the Las Vegas Strip.

 The following is a post that I wrote on Vegas Fanatics.com in response to the thread: Why I broke up with MGM  

The entire thread is a good read on how people are currently feeling about the Las Vegas Strip and why I believe that the current business model they are pursuing is unsustainable.

As bad as MGM is, Caesars might even be worse. From unkempt properties to poor customer service to throttling comps the Las Vegas Strip is no longer about gambling. It's about conventions and day clubs and night clubs and too-expensive restaurants and the $25 cocktail at the bar. Gambling is just another thing to do on the Strip and, outside of a handful of really, really big players, they really isn't any incentive for them to cater to the gambler any longer.

Why give away a room to a player who might gamble say....$10,000 over a couple of days when you can charge someone a sales rate for a room over a weekend and they and their friends will rent a pool cabana, get bottle service, eat at the nice restaurants, go to a night club and get more bottle service, spend a ton of money on liquor, maybe gamble $1000 over the entire weekend, lose it all because they aren't serious about it, and walk away with a weekend spend of higher than the gambler?

This is why you're seeing the de-theming of Harrah's, why all of the Mardi Gras decorations are gone. Because conventions don't care about themes, they care about meeting space and restaurants and activities.

Once the corporations took over Las Vegas, and realized they could make just as much, if not more, money on other amenities outside of gambling (with no risk BTW) the writing was on the wall. By "no risk" I mean that there's no chance a "hot run" at Ka is going to destroy the quarter's profit. There's no chance someone renting a cabana is going to hit a Wheel of Fortune Jackpot. these revenue streams are easier to trend and trending are things that CEOs who have read a few management books really like to see.

All that said, here's why I think it's not going to get any better.

For all of their faults, and there were many, in the past Las Vegas had visionaries. People like Jay Sarno, Steve Wynn and, to a lesser extent, Sheldon Alderson. Casino owners who had a vision for what they wanted Vegas to be and they weren't afraid to take risks to get it, and most times, lose it. What you have now are management-school bred MBAs who are running things and making decisions not on some vision, but on trends, projections, budgets and financial reports. People like to say the "bean-counters" are running things. That's not true, but the people who are running things are solely looking at the numbers the "bean-counters" provide and are using that solely to make business decisions. There's not one casino owner in the C-Suite on the Strip who's thinking "I wonder what comes next?"

The closest you have to that in Las Vegas right now are the Stephens brothers and Circa, which really was a visionary property in the downtown area. Yes, it's just like having the best house in a bad neighborhood but people seem to be flocking to that best house and their 21+ rules really don't seem to be hurting them. In fact, it seems to be helping them. They built a monster Sports book (truly one of the best places to watch a game in Las Vegas) and a pool that is also built around sports. They've turned The D into a place that's a must-visit and while they need to invest in it (especially the HVAC system) they have an undeniable piece of Vegas history in the Golden Gate. While they say "never say never" when it comes to eventually purchasing a Strip property I would think that's a long way out. What they're probably hoping for is that one of the big two corporations decides to bail on Vegas, which could happen eventually. (again, eventually being a LONG WAY out.

As with anything however, this worm will turn. Prior to the pandemic articles were already being written in the national media about the perceived lack of value on the Strip. Even before the shut-down their were worrying signs that people were starting to look other places as travel destinations. Occupancy rates were starting to dip on the Strip. Gaming was declining on the Strip and increasing downtown. Post pandemic this all changes as people just want to get out of their damn houses and cut loose.

That will change however. And when it does guess who the Strip casino operators are going to look to in order to bail them out?


That $10,000 gambler who they all but jettisoned when times were flush. My hope is most of them have moved on by the time this happens.

Danger Will Robinson!! Danger!!!

Cashless gaming has long been the apple of the casino industry's eye. Linking an app to your bank account to allow them to more efficiently drain you of your funds is the gold-standard for an industry that plays lip-service to "responsible gaming" but really doesn't back that up with any solid action.

And suddenly.....it's here:

Cashless gaming system introduced at downtown Henderson casino. Richard N. Velotta, Las Vegas Review Journal.

Customers can download an app, available to Android and iPhone users, and register with a phone number and an email address. They then link their bank account to the app and, after registration, are told if they’re approved and offered a line of credit. If qualified for the program, the maximum charge is 1 percent, normally less expensive than a traditional ATM fee.

While casino gambling has traditionally been a cash-centric business, the goal has always been to move away from hard currency and into the realm of digital.  Having an app that allows gamblers to link to their bank account and more easily withdraw funds is exactly what they're looking to do. Prior to this when you felted, you had to get up, walk to the ATM and withdraw money, usually with a very high withdrawal fee (from $7.99 to $9.99 in some places). Gamblers referred to this as a "cooling off period" where, ostensibly, the gambler might decide that pulling out more money is a bad idea and just call it a day.

In reality this never really happened, due to a combination of alcohol and dopamine.

I foresee a LOT of issues stemming from these apps, and cashless gaming as a whole. While casinos already are willing to take every last dollar from you, they will find it easier to do now, protestations of being advocates for responsible gaming to the contrary.

Let me tell you a quick story about my last trip to Vegas. I'll leave the casino name out of this.

On Sunday morning Mrs. TPM and I woke up, got ready, and went down to a video poker bar for a round of Bloody Marys as is our custom. While playing VP, an obviously drunk and tired man walked up to the bar, sat down at a machine, and tried to ram his credit card into the cash slot. The bartender yelled at him to STOP! that he was going to lose his card in the machine (they could get it back but would have to open it of course) and that they were "cash only".  He then responded "So, I need a debit card then?"  Bartender: "No, cash only".

At this point it was very clear that this man had been up all night.  He said out loud that he was down $10K and had been playing craps all evening. He was clearly not in a right state of mind and should have been backed off, offered an escort back to his room or pointed toward an Uber to get him to wherever it was he was staying.

What did the casino staff do?

They pointed him to the ATM machine.

Now imagine if he had an app on his phone and had the ability to cheaply, and easily, load even more money onto his card.  Given how much he had lost, he was NOT going to make it up on those machines. It's possible that, had he just taken a time out, he might have woken up after a nap refreshed, and made some kind of come back the next day, OR he could have had a clearer head and just accepted his losses and moved on.

The point is, even without cashless gaming the casinos do little more for patrons than putting those "when the fun stops" flyers by the ATMs. They do absolutely nothing to actually promote responsible gaming. In a world where online sports books are starting to receive much (well deserved) scrutiny about entangling problem gamers, should not the casinos face the same level of scrutiny?

I understand that you might be reading this and are probably thinking "Wait, this guy gambles, why is he so up in arms?"

Fair question.  The reason I am so up in arms is because I work hard to gamble responsibly. I only bring gambling the money I am willing to lose, I never hit up the ATM, and I quit when my daily budget is done. I also have a wife who does not gamble much at all to keep me in check when I've had 4 too many, and I've learned from mistakes I've made in the past. Trust me, these lessons were hard earned and I've seen too many people on the casino floor who have not learned them, or cannot learn them because of addiction.

I view gambling as a form of entertainment. My gambling budget is the cost of being entertained. Too many people view it as a get-rich-quick scheme, and while it may be a LOT of things, a path to financial freedom it is not.

It's a path to financial ruin, and the cashless gaming movement is only going to make it worse if not reigned in early.

2022: New Year, New Plan, New Strategy, Different Results?

I'm typing this post out on the last evening of "Dry January", having decided to partake in the relatively new 'tradition' of taking January off from drink.  I'm not going to lie, it felt good sleeping well at night, having greater mental acuity and a host of other benefits that total sobriety affords one.

That said, I'm ready for a nice, cold beer.

It was particularly tough during playoff football. Not because I "had to have a drink" but because I "like" to have a drink or three when watching football, when grilling or smoking tasty meat in the back yard, because football and a beer go hand in hand.

Not that I'm going to run out tomorrow and buy a six-pack and down it, I'll probably remain off the sauce until the weekend.  But Saturday I'll likely be out on the smoker with some type of protein slow cooking, and a beer in hand.

As you know, in 2020 I decided that the whole "Vlogging" thing was not for me. I have neither the desire to walk around filming everything I do any more than I have a desire to spend hours editing and putting special effects on videos. I can write a blog, easy, but recording, editing and uploading a video takes time and effort that I'm just not willing to put in.

That said, I do enjoy talking about gambling, food, drink and travel so I will still incorporate video at some level, but it might be stored on YouTube and linked to this blog. I'm still working out the details within my own mind.

On a casino front, we're going to kick off 2022 with a bang.

Feb 10 -12: L'aberge Lake Charles

March 9-14: Las Vegas

May 9-12: River Spirit, Tulsa OK.

Gaming structure will be about the same. A ton of video poker and  quite a few slots, with some Blackjack thrown in for good measure, and a heap-ton of sports betting. Given the expanded options in Louisiana now more quick trips across the border might be in the works to take advantage of the many betting apps over there. Sorry Texas, you suck.

So, get ready to see my mug some, to hopefully read my words more, and *crosses fingers* to see some big wins this year. 2019 was a toss, 2020 started off strong and tapered off, so I'm hoping for a big comeback in 2021. Starting a couple of weeks out in Louisiana.

Until then......Eat well, Drink Top Shelf, and pull Premium Hands.

College Football: The Red River......whatever.

When UT-Austin and Oklahoma-Norman play tackle football it's always a big week. People in my generation grew up calling it the Red River Shootout, but the woke folks over at ESPN have decided that such things are no longer allowed.

So, we have had the Red River Showdown, Rivalry and a host of other names, none of them which have stuck.

What we do know is that it's a pretty big rivalry game (yes, we still miss UT-Austin vs. aTm on Thanksgiving) that's pretty much appointment viewing because something weird is going to happen.

..........

I've decided, moving forward, to get rid of the FIVE.  One of the big reasons is that I'm not comfortable being forced to pick 5 games.  There are weekends where I have more than five, and some where I only have one or two that I really like. So I'm replacing that little experiment with this, an overview of the weekend at hand, I'll share some things that I'm considering but offer no picks.

..........

Tonight I like Houston.  I grabbed them at -4.5 early in the week and the line has since moved to -6.5 or -7, but I still like them against Tulane. After stubbing their toe against Tortilla Tech in the season opener the Cougars have started to get things together and, especially on defense, are starting to get on a roll.

I also like Temple as a big dog (+29 currently) against a Cincinnati team that I think is going to have a "we just beat Notre Dame team in their house" hangover.  I don't like Temple to win, but I do like them to cover comfortably.

Another play that I'm really liking is Stanford +13 against Arizona State. The Cardinal are a good team, not a great team, that can stay close to other good teams as are the Sun Devils. I'm still not a believer in the fighting Herm Edwards.

..........

Aside from those three games I think Michigan State (-6) is light against Rutgers as is Louisville (-2.5) vs a Virginia team whose defense cannot stop a hard-charging Jr. High Marching Band.

..........

Outside of the Red River game, the rest of the schedule does not pop-out to the eye, on paper. It's during weeks like this however that college football endlessly surprises.

Good luck however you bet.

College Football: Giving the FIVE a week off.

Last week was a college football blood-bath. My worst week in a couple of years.  The FIVE struggled to a 1-4 record which lowers my season tally to 10-10 which is only .500 and now places me below the vig.

Ouch.

I am taking off this week to re-evaluate my numbers and try and figure out where the noise is in my model. This means stripping it down and evaluating where I'm getting it wrong. So my CFB betting this week is a test of my new model and not reflective of the FIVE.

I will have some things to say about other gambling stuff, and that will come later in the week.  IF I'm happy with my new numbers this week we'll bring back the FIVE next week and see if we cannot continue moving forward at a better clip.

Enjoy the weekend's games.  Alabama vs. Ole Miss should be a scorcher.

Good luck however you bet.

College Football: The Week 4 FIVE

Into every life a little rain must fall, and to every college football better a disappointing week must occur. Such was my week three. Disappointing performances by teams that I thought would play a LOT better (Looking at you Virginia) some downright silly things (Hi San Jose State) and a really wrong take on a game. (Auburn)

This left me at an underwhelming 2-3 for the weekend and staring down the barrel at my first losing week on the FIVE. Overall we're still OK, 9-6 for the season which is still good, but we were hoping for so much more.

My strategy this week was to grab lines early, once they were posted before they had a chance to move, to try and catch the market at its least efficient.  Let's see where we land this week.....

1. Kansas State (-7) vs. Oklahoma State (Curr: -6 O/U 46)

The Cowboys are NOT a good team this year, and I really think Kansas State is. I would not be at all surprised to see the Wildcats walk away with the win on the ML. I'm quite happy taking a touchdown and extra point here.

2. Michigan State (-4) vs Nebraska (Curr: -5 O/U 52)

I have been very impressed with the Spartans this year and have raised my rating of them. I have been very disappointed with Nebraska this year and have lowered my ratings significantly.  I envision a scenario where Michigan State runs away and hides here.

3. West Virginia (+16.5) vs Oklahoma (Curr: +16.5 O/U 56)

I'm a little surprised that this line has not moved toward the Mountaineers yet. Oklahoma's defense is, to be blunt, still not good and West Virginia has a quality offense. WVU also play pretty solid defense for a Big XII team. I don't see much more than a FG between these two teams and I'm certainly contemplating the over.

4. Liberty (-6) vs Syracuse (Curr: -6 O/U 52.5)

The Flames are really good, the Cuse is not. Head Coach Dino Babers has not thrived in New York and Hugh Freeze has done a good job building Liberty into a very, very solid team. I think six might be a gift here.

5. Utah State (+9) vs Boise State (Curr: +9 O/U 70.0)

Yet another line that I expected to move toward Utah State but has not. I'd be surprised if you can still grab +9 at kick off. Yes, Boise State gets a bump for playing at home on the Smurf turf, but their opponent is a really strong Utah State team that would again not surprise me if they won this outright.

Honorable Mention:

Northwestern (-14.5) vs Ohio (O/U 48)

That it is a bad number is the only thing that kept this game out of the FIVE. Northwestern is a decent team playing a very bad team at home. Blowout potential.

And Finally....

Michigan (-20) vs. Rutgers (O/U 50)

If anything, I like the Over here but I hate, hate, hate this line for Michigan. If anything, I'd almost take Rutgers here but the bad line makes it a pass.  But Go Blue! anyway.

Good luck to you however you bet.

College Football: The Week 3 FIVE

 Last week was a nail-biter. We started off rough, 0-2 after the first two games, and then rallied to finish 3-2 for the week (including the BYU ML call) which brings us to 7-3 for the season, 8-4 overall (which includes bets not in the FIVE)  As I stated before, one of the biggest issues with college football season is self-editing. It's easy to find a dozen games on which you have a lean, but we don't bet leans.

With that in mind here's the third week of the FIVE.

1. Auburn (+6) vs. Penn State. (Curr: +5.0 O/U 53.0)

I'm pretty high on the Tigers this year, and I actually think they have a solid shot of pulling off the outright upset in Happy Valley. But, I'm not brave enough to pull that trigger. So I'm going with the spread and thinking there's about a FG between these two teams.  It will be another "White out" for Penn State, which is pretty much any game they play at home now which is causing it to lose it's luster a bit.

2. Utah State (+8) vs. Air Force. (Curr: +8.0 O/U 54.0)

I think Air Force is a tad bit overrated due to them beating up on a pretty not-good Navy team last week. Utah State has been in pretty tough so far this year, and I think that they have enough to keep it very, very close against Air Force.

3. Virginia +9 vs. North Carolina (Curr: +9 O/U 66.5)

I'm still seeing a disconnect between my downgrade of North Carolina, due mainly to all of the skill position players they lost, and the odds, so I'm rolling with that. Virginia has a very good offense and a defense that I think is going to give the Tar Heels fits.

4. San Jose State (-7) vs. Hawaii. (Curr: -6.5 O/U 61.5)

Last year the Spartans won the Mountain West, and despite an up and down start I think they're much better than a down Hawaii team this year.  Plus: This gives me a reason to stay up until all hours of the night for a Hawaii game.

5. Michigan State +6.5 vs. Miami. (Curr: +6.0 O/U 56.5)

My analysis on this one is simple: Miami is the most overrated team week after week on the odds board. At some point the adjustment will come but until it does, I'll even take a bad number against them.

Honorable Mention:  UCF -6.5 vs. Louisville. (O/U 67)

This promises to be an offensive showdown between two teams looking to re-establish themselves as top teams. I like UCF here. I think a blowout UCF win is much more likely than a blowout Louisville win.

And Finally.....

Michigan -27.5 vs. Northern Illinois (O/U 54)

Yes, yes, yes, we all LOVE Michigan right now after they made mince-meat out of the Washington Huskies, but Michigan cannot throw the ball and eventually teams are going to figure that out. Playing offense one-handed is tough. Michigan NEEDS to develop their passing game sans Ronnie Bell.

Good luck to you however you bet this weekend.

College Football: The Week 2 FIVE

After missing a couple of bets in week 0, we rebounded nicely in Week 1 going 4-1 for the FIVE (curse your conservative nature David Cutcliffe) and 7-2 overall. This brings us to 4-1 for the FIVE this year (yay) and 7-4 overall for the young college football season. (As a reminder, I only list the FIVE but I have other plays. I'm not selling plays, these are just the ones that I really liked when typing out this blog.)

Week Two can often be a lot of fun because the market tends to overreact to a small sample size in week 1. This means that there is often opportunity to be found in some lines that are skewed off of what your numbers show they should be. Early in the season, trust your numbers. This might get a little more dicey later in the season as the market gains efficiency, especially in the Power 5 conferences but, for now, I trust what my numbers are telling me.

With that in Mind......

1. Illinois +10 @ Virginia. (Curr*: +10 O/U 55)

Here's one where I think the market is overreacting to a team in a classic sandwich week, losing to a lesser known team that's actually pretty darn good.  UTSA are a contender in Conference USA, West Division, and have a pretty salty offense.  Virginia beat up on an FCS foe that they should have beaten and I think they are getting too much credit for that, while Illinois is taking too much blame.

2. South Carolina +2 @ East Carolina (Curr: -1.5 O/U 56.5)

This line opened at -3 SC at most books, and almost immediately moved to ECU -2.  When I saw SC at +2 -110 at my book I pounced. Even at -1.5 think this is playable, maybe even up to -2.5. Watching line moves and taking advantage of a market issue is a feature, not a bug in sports betting.

3. Oklahoma State -12.5 vs. Tulsa  (Curr: -13 O/U 51.5)

OSU did not look impressive against Missouri State in their opener. And Tulsa looked even worse, loving to UC Davis at home. It typically takes any Mike Gundy coached team a game to get things moving, but they usually perform much better in game 2 vs game 1.  I think we're going to see that here against a Tulsa team that's probably going to struggle in the AAC this year.

4. Rutgers -2 vs. Syracuse (Curr: -2.5 O/U 52)

As I predicted last week, Rutgers was MUCH the better team than Temple. NOT the Temple that people think of when Matt Ruhle was coaching there. I think Syracuse is overrated after facing an Ohio team that's having to deal with a late head coaching change after the retirement of Solich. I expect to see Rutgers win comfortably this week and next week against Delaware, before their schedule gets much, much tougher.

5. BYU ML +220 vs. Utah. (Curr: +220, -7 Utah, O/U 49)

BYU did not look spectacular over a fairly pedestrian Arizona team, while Utah beat up FCS member Weber State. Because of this Utah is installed as a fairly good sized favorite, with people believing that their transfer QB is the key to them finally getting an offense that matches their always good defense. There are a couple of reasons that I like the Cougars here though. 1. It's still early in the season and they have not yet been beaten down by the sausage grinder of a schedule that they go through as an independent. 2. It's not unusual for Utah to look good against inferior competition.  Finally, this is the Holy War. Strange things happen when the Holy War is played in Provo.

Honorable Mention: Coastal Carolina -25 vs. Kansas. (Curr: -25, O/U 52)

Friday's game is going to get ugly, early.  Kansas has the best coach that they've had since Mangino but the talent cupboard is bare, bare, bare.  I see this as a 56-10 type of game. (You might want to play the over as well if you're so inclined.)

And finally.....

Washington @ Michigan (-7, O/U 48.5)

Being a Michigan Man I always have to talk about Big Blue, despite the fact that I would not touch this game with a 20 foot betting pole. Losing Ronnie Bell for the season is going to hurt, meaning that someone in the WR corps is going to have to step up. Washington did get beat by Montana, at home, and now they have to go on the road to the Big House but.....it's Michigan.  Stay away, stay far away.

But Go Blue.

*Current lines taken from ESPN.com as of 12:39PM on Wednesday, 9/8/21. It is probable that, by the time you've read this, things have changed.

Hail (and Farewell) Caesar

For a long time now I'm devoted a not insignificant amount of time writing, and Tweeting, about why the Strip is no longer for me. The odds are bad, CNF (and other) fees suck, the place is now just a tire-fire of people wandering around losing money on bad games etc.

Now Caesars Entertainment has decided you cannot visit their Sportsbooks without paying for a seat. (h/t Marc Meltzer)

Whatever. 

Caesars is currently leading MGM in the race to the bottom. They offer worse odds, no longer grandfather players in at tables when the minimums are raised, and now they want $80 to sit in a chair and bet on football?

And, let's face facts, it is not as if Caesars properties are the crown jewels of Vegas. The images of dirty rooms, hallways, elevators, parking garages and other common areas are legion. They are rapidly deteriorating properties that offer nothing for those wanting to have a good time. Even Caesars Palace is a shadow of it's former self. Limping along on a past reputation offering up very expensive "experiences" at the cost of actually having a good time.

Not to mention all of the news reports showing the Strip has become a tad bit fighty and shooty of late.

There is still, just, The Cosmopolitan, WynnCore and Venetian/Palazzo that are nice, and I'm still a believer that Treasure Island is somewhat underrated. Resorts World shows promise, but not for gambling, and the jury is still out on whether or not Phil Ruffin and company are going to do anything worthwhile with Circus Circus, or if they can capitalize on being adjacent to the Strip's shiny new toy.

What is somewhat clear is that the former winner of the Strip wars, the South end, and even the middle, is all but a no fly zone. Maybe, in a non-gambling mode, you check out the Linq Promenade from time to time and see the Bellagio Fountains and Conservatory but outside of that?

Any future forays onto Las Vegas most famous tourist trap are going to be limited to the North end, and Cosmo. More frequently however, you're going to find me Downtown and off-Strip, far away from the fees, the overcharging, the short-pouring and the general nastiness that has become the Las Vegas Strip.

You certainly will not see me frequenting any Caesars property. Their customer unfriendly business decisions since the merger have made them unvisitable. I don't care if they offer to pay me to go. (Which, they won't because I'm not an #Influencer.)

It's really too bad, because I used to like visiting Caesars Palace, walking through the Shoppes, eating at Trevi, getting a cigar at Monte Cristo.....No more.

It's not me Caesars, it's you.

The Las Vegas Strip 2021: $9 Bread, 6/5 Blackjack and 000 Roulette.

And we haven't even mentioned all of the fees......

News from Mark Metzer that Giada (the Cromwell based vanity project of the incredibly large-headed Giada DeLaurentis) is Now charging $9 for her bread plate where it used to be free, and it's now sans the dried capers that everyone seemed to like.

$9.  For a bread plate. You can feed two people for that eating fast food, or at a taco truck in Houston. ($1 street tacos are where it's at y'all)

For me, the Strip has been much a no-go for a while now. Sure, I'll drop by the Bellagio to watch the fountains and see the Conservatory, possibly drop into The Cosmopolitan to eat at Lardo and maybe play some VP at their sports book bar, but outside of that?

IF I'm gambling there it's just throwing $40 bucks into a quarter VP machine with some friends, or maybe the same amount of money on a slot or three. I NEVER play table games there because the odds are putrid, and I tend to steer my gambling budget away from days that I'm going to be on the Strip. My daily gambling budget for a day on the Strip is a full quarter of what it would be for a day off Strip, probably not even a fifth of my budget for locals casinos.

All that said, one of the primary reasons that I visit Vegas is to gamble. Although it's becoming less about that as the trips go on. On my upcoming August trip I plan to gamble less in a week than I just gambled over 2.5 days at River Spirit in Tulsa, and about the same as I gamble in 2 days at my local.

Why is this?

Well, for one, the odds are better away from Vegas for the most part. The once "Gambling Capitol of the World" is now the "Shitty Gambling Capitol of the World" putting in things that would not fly at any other casino. So far, due to a lack of give a shit by a drunken public just happy to be back out in the world, they are getting away with it to the tune of a record $1.23 Billion gambling haul in May, the highest single-month win in the State's history.

By all appearances, they are accomplishing this IN SPITE of themselves.

Between some of the worst posted odds in the world, "innovations" that are continually player unfriendly, and an ever-growing laundry list of fees, Las Vegas today is living up to it's new "Only Vegas" marketing line.

Only Las Vegas has shit odds and as many fees as you'll find in the world. And it's coming at the expense of value.

The issue is that the casino resorts really believe that they are something special in this world today, that Vegas as a draw is going to continue no matter how much they gouge the customers. That the demand that they've witnessed post-COVID, which was a perfect storm of people being tired of lock downs and stimulus money, is going to continue unabated.

In short, they are doing this because they think that they CAN. There seems to be no one on the executive floors of these corporations asking if they SHOULD.

And that's going to be a problem.

Already signs are there that the post-lockdown boom is rapidly coming to a close. Not only are COVID-19 cases again on the rise, due in large part to casinos rapidly abandoning the safety protocols that kept them contained in the first place, but people are just starting to find other things to do.

Gambling and losing is expected, sitting down to a blackjack table, after paying for your flight, room, resort fee, parking and some extremely high taxes partly to pay for the Raider's Stadium, waiting an hour for a cab/Uber/Lyft, waiting in long lines for check-in to a room that's shoddy at best, only to find the odds are 2 times worse than you can find at your local casino is downright discouraging.

People come to Vegas hopeful for a good time, they leave bemoaning $2000 bottle service in a night club that's packed beyond capacity and a possible Delta Variant to boot. If they did not go to a night club, they paid way too much for a cabana at a pool that's apparently increasingly under-chlorinated and choked with too many people.

Then your gambling sucks, because the odds are so depleted winning is impossible, and now you're being charged $9 for a few tiny slices of bread.

At some point, people are going to say "enough" and just decide the city is not worth it any more.

That day may be closer in coming than many think.

In the Matter of Gil Alexander v. The Westgate SuperBook (Buyer Beware)

This is, on the surface, now a blog concerned about gambling and sports betting. Because of this I invoke Blogger rule 3.2.1 Subsection 32 and am going to type some words about the subject above.

If you've not been following along, here's a brief summary:

Back in March(?) Mr. Alexander made some futures wagers on Iga Swiatek to win the French Open at odds in the range of 30-1. These bets apparently varied in size, but some were around the $1000 level which would have paid Mr. Alexander $30K.

Fast forward to today, and Mr. Alexander went to various books to cash his winning tickets. According to Mr. Alexander, all of the books paid him his winnings except one: The Westgate Superbook. According to the Superbook they had cancelled all wagers in that pool and later put up a substitute pool due to the French Open occurring later in the year. Mr. Alexander was refunded his $1,000 and then all Heck broke loose on VSiN.

The brewhaha broke out yesterday morning when Mr. Alexander, on his VSiN morning show, went on around an hour long stem-winder against the Superbook, what he termed their "vague" rules, and the practice of sports books in general not being transparent when bets are cancelled.

This has, as you can imagine, created quite the tempest in the teapot that is sports wagering.

Ignoring the back-and-forth that's going on at VSiN right now (which is a blog post in and of itself, but is also something I consider to be an internal, company matter) what's emerged from all of this are two camps.

First: The 'Your ticket, Your responsibility' camp. - These people feel that Mr. Alexander is 100% in the wrong and that he should have understood the rules when making a bet. In many (not all) cases they know the staff at Westgate and frequent the place.  According to their tweets and statements they feel that the Book has zero obligation to notify gamblers of changes, and that the onus lies on the bettor to monitor their own bets.

Second: The "Books are bad" camp. - This group is against the book, has in many cases promised to never play at the Superbook again (I don't believe that but OK) and feels that the books should do anything that they can to ensure bettors know about the status of their bets.

I would like to propose a 3rd camp, my camp.

"I'm responsible for my own shit but the place that I do business can retain my loyalty by practicing good customer service."

In his interview this morning on the VSiN show "Follow the Money" SuperBook Godfather Jay Kornegay felt that the Book did "as much as they could" to notify bettors of changes to their French Open futures by: A. Having a staffer tweet it out on their personal Twitter account and B.) Talking about it on Follow the Money on VSiN.  While I will agree this is certainly "something" I do think the book COULD have gone further.

No, I do not think that the Superbook should have "taken a full page ad out in newspapers: (which, besides being a bogus argument also shows just how far behind the times Nevada sports books really are) but I do think they could have done four simple (cheap) things to advertise that a major change had taken place.

1. Put a notice up on their board that French Open wagers have been cancelled.  Do one of those *ASTERISKS SURROUNDING A STATMENT IN ALL CAPS* messages, prominently displayed.

2. Put up some signage in the Book stating that all French Open Futures have been cancelled and that a new pool was forthcoming.

3. Put a Pop-up Message on their APP that all French Open Futures have been cancelled and that a new pools was forthcoming.

4. Send an e-mail blast to ALL customers stating that French Open futures were cancelled and that a new pools was forthcoming.

Notice, no where in these, am I asking the book to track the wagers and individually notify the player (which many have suggested), I don't think the onus is on them to that degree. In today's age, with technology being what it is, and given that most bettors place their bets with a Player's Card, and said cards have an e-mail attached to them, it should not be difficult for that to happen. If you don't think that the casinos understand who is betting with them and do not use those card's already for bet tracking purposes you, like NV sportsbooks, are behind the times.

My point is that NV sportsbooks especially have a LONG WAY to go to provide even moderate customer service to bettors. The idea that "buyer beware" and that every bettor has the sole onus of calling into a book to check the status of current wagers is as insipid as saying that the book has the obligation to notify each and every bettor of a change. Neither is true.

As with everything, this will ultimately be adjudicated by the NV Gaming Commission. To be honest, I figure they will rule with the SuperBook because the Commission is not a player's advocate and has traditionally sided with the House.

On another note, one would think that Sportsbooks would be more communicative to it's customers during a pandemic that has thrown everything out of whack and has made improved communication more important than ever. Vegas Sports Betting industry constantly likes to come onto various media outlets and pound their chests that they are "The Industry Gold Standard"

It's past time they started acting like it.

And, if you're a bettor, that's your investment, please take some time to understand at least the basics about it.

Court finds for no one, everyone was wrong and the industry is still a mess.  Case Closed.

How Gambling Media Covers "Parlay Patz" will Reveal a lot About their Usefulness.

Parlay Patz, a 23-year old who's hit a rather improbable run on long-shot money line parlays, is getting some attention from gambling media these days:

50 Days, $1.1 Million in winnings and One Wild Ride. Darren Rovell, The Action Network

Who is Ben “Parlay” Patz? He’s a 23-year-old kid who has become the latest fascination of the gambling world, amassing more than $1.1 million in gross winnings via parlays — often seen as the sports gambling world’s version of the lottery — in less than two months.

Patz has stayed away from including spreads within his parlays almost entirely, instead opting to back big moneyline favorites.

It may not be a sound strategy over the long-term, but it seems to be working for Patz, who just landed at nearby Teterboro Airport after chartering a jet to take himself and three friends to the British Virgin Islands at a timeshare program he purchased with some of his gambling winnings. A private chef made them food.

These types of stories always seem to circulate from time to time.  Young gambler, decides to take up the craft because of one reason or another, goes on an improbable short-term run, and then is never heard from again.

In the interim though, their story is told, some lucky breaks are revealed, big wins are chronicled, and a jet-setting lifestyle is broadcast for all to see. Marketing blitzes are created, the lucky gambler's face is plastered across the Internet and, if they're lucky, a way for them to monetize their success is determined before they fall out of the public eye.

Rarely, in the past, have follow-up stories been done, there are few "where are they now?" features that run AFTER the luck runs out, after the plane trips and catered lunches and friends on beaches.

In other words, the "books" who market these people for their own benefit, don't want the public to see the downside of the game. That's bad for public relations obviously.

Enter the relatively new genre of "gaming media", whose job it is to ostensibly cover the industry with candor but who, more often than not, wind up being little more than independent PR firms for the books rather than dispassionate coverage of the same.

Because Parlay Patz luck will run out. I don't wish this on hem, and I hope he invests wisely, but a read of the article by Rovell suggests strongly that he's not doing this through strong analytics or anything of the sort. In short, he's getting lucky.  And the house edge (the Vig) is designed to wear away at luck over time. It's as persistent as water, it rarely loses.  In fact, there are probably less than 100 individuals who are good enough at this game to beat it consistently.  For most people (including me in a bit of full disclosure) gambling is a long-term losing situation. It's entertainment with a slight chance of coming out ahead.

Granted, you can study, learn strategy, build models, become good at algorithms or a host of other techniques but they do not build those big, extravagant casinos on the backs of winning gamblers.

So will Rovell, and the Action Network (and others) cover that?

The history is not promising.

The media, who are supposed to cover the network, have not, to my knowledge, started one project to track the records of so-called touts, many of whom claim remarkable (and unlikely) winning percentages of 75-80% over time. They have not, to my knowledge, covered the long-term hit percentages of many of the so-called "experts" in sports gaming. There are many examples that I could give you, but the purpose of this blog post is not to call out individual touts, it's to call out sports media for not doing their job.

On the podcast yesterday, I mentioned many of the faults with gambling Twitter as a whole, the biggest among them are inflated records, touting and general trolling. If gambling media wants to make a name for itself, it will call this out, identify it, and shine the disinfecting power of sunlight upon it.

If they continue to just report transient success stories with no questions asked?

They're not media, they are PR firms.

And you would be right to treat them as such.
 

Sports Betting: Square Money

Given the title of this blog, you would not be surprised to find out that I find all of the talk about "sharp plays" and "public (square) plays" to be fascinating.

I do for a couple of reasons:

1. There 's a lot of confusion in the sports betting market about what a "sharp" actually is.

If you listen to a lot of the noise there's an awful lot of "sharp" money out there, a lot of people who consider themselves "sharp" and a lot of people who consider others to be "sharp" because they talk. A LOT.

The fact is few of these "sharps" really are.

2. The Public (or square, going forward) money is more prevalent in the market than you think.

A big proportion of so-called "sharp" money is actually "square" money with above average PR.  Many touts, so-called 'experts', are as square as it gets if you track their play, examine the lines they grab and follow their results. Also, many touts offer up plays with stale lines (with no disclosure) and cherry-pick results, sometimes slicing the pie so thin it becomes translucent.

I was not surprised all that much then to see the following Bloomberg story about Wall Street deciding they have the analytical chops to dive into sports betting:

Wall Street is wading into sports gambling as legalization spreads. Bloomberg

The line between trading and gambling has always been fuzzy. So now that 13 U.S. states have live legal sports betting and several more have approved it, following a 2018 Supreme Court ruling, it’s natural to wonder if Wall Street will start looking for a piece of the action.

A few firms already are. At least one is actually making bets, much as a hedge fund trades stocks. Susquehanna International Group LLP, a quantitative trading firm headquartered in Bala Cynwyd, Pa., is building up a sports betting division in Ireland, where such wagers have long been legal. The business unit, called Nellie Analytics—named after co-founder Jeff Yass’s dog—has about 20 employees.

Of course, this is not the norm, and the article goes on to say that many hedge funds are getting involved by investing in back-end technology but, as an observer of the sports betting world, the above blurb intrigued me because I'm sure this division is going to immediately be classified as "sharp" despite the fact that they're most probably not.

First, they're probably day traders, trying to adjust their modeling to handle sports wagers. Second, they have no track record of prolonged success that would insinuate that they are, in fact, "sharp" at picking lines and placing bets.  Third, you primarily see them laying action at retail books, which is the very definition of 'square'.

The the European books are taking their action, with no punitive limits or back-offs, to this date shows that their betting is based on little more than random averages.  In short: luck.  Even the squarest of bettors can find hit-rates of somewhere around 50%, the sharpest of bettors float around 53-55%.  The difference seems small, but is actually huge.

Given the track record of Wall Street it won't be long before these betting divisions gussy themselves up and start operating as 'corporate touts', putting a shiny new coat of paint on a dilapidated business practice that's remarkably similar to investment firms.

You pay regardless of financial outcome. Win or lose, they make money off of your fees and commissions.

Sound familiar?

Closing the Door on my Horse Race Betting Hobby

Or...why I quit worrying and learned to avoid the track.

The revelation, in the New York Times, that Justify failed a drug test during the Santa Anita Derby which would have denied him the points to enter the Kentucky Derby (which he won, leading to an eventual Triple Crown), isn't what's leading me to abandon betting on a sport that I once loved.

Nor is it the fact that several horses die due to injuries every year.

Nope, what's causing me to abandon the sport is that it's becoming increasingly clear that it's a rigged game. That the government agencies in charge of the sport are willingly rigging it in favor of bigger named trainers, owners, breeders and jockeys.

My fall-out began last year in the Kentucky Derby, and it's come to a nadir with this story.  This is on top of all the troubling recent news about increased take-out and several industry "influencers" stating that betting is not an integral part of horse racing and that bettors aren't really needed.

OK then, we're going to test that theory because I'm done.  Finished.  The last bet that I placed on a horse race IS the last bet I will ever place on a horse race. Because I cannot in good conscious bet into a game that's rigged against me, and that doesn't value my money, time and investment.

Strangely enough, this will also affect several other decisions in my sports life.

1. I'm getting rid of the increasingly terrible U-Verse TV service.  Pretty much the ONLY reason I kept them was to keep up with goings-on on TVG.  Now that I don't need that service any longer, hail and farewell, hello streaming.

2. I've probably spent my last dollar at Sam Houston Race Park.  This is the hardest choice because I really liked going there.  But going there and not betting seems silly and pretty much a waste of time.

3. Since I'm not betting on races I probably won't even WATCH the races.

It's not that there aren't other, less problematic, areas to scratch the sports-betting itch, even in notoriously betting unfriendly (and backwards) Texas.  All of them better than betting on a game that's become hopelessly corrupt, extremely backward and, in most cases, unprofitable due to the manipulation of tote boards on the "last tick" before the races go off.

So, Good Bye horse racing, I truly hope you can dust yourself off and turn yourself around and become a viable gaming option again, but I doubt it.  Because the people in charge, and the media covering you, have become just as corrupt and untrustworthy as every other government or media agency.

It's all Fake News now, no matter which side you're on.



At least I'll always have Afleet Alex in the Preakness, and War Emblem and especially Secretariat.

I'll keep those memories.

The 144th Preakness: The Race is Stronach'd, and I'm not Having it.

For about the past 25 years I've been a horse player.  Not every day mind you, not even every week. I'm what you might call a 'social horse bettor'.  I like to bet the Kentucky Derby Prep races, including the 2YO races the year prior, the Triple Crown, the Royal Ascot, Meydan Carnival and the bigger races in the Fall.

It's not much, and I'm not a huge player, but I've enjoyed it and horse racing has always been something that I've been drawn to, despite only riding a horse two times in my life.

I'm not great, but I'm not that bad either. I can handicap slightly above-average and it's a rare card that I don't at least hit something on which allows me to break even, or sometimes better.  Are their exceptions?  Sure.  This year I whiffed on the Kentucky Derby Day card, doing a good job picking two out of the top three horses to finish in every race.  This would have been great but I was betting mainly trifectas.

I pulled an O-fer on the Derby, which is not unusual, but with the disqualification this year even my wife missed, which is unusual for her. (She had Maximum Security of course, so she's not happy).

So we go forward to the Preakness, traditionally my 'get back' race, the card where I have historically recouped my losses from Derby Day, and then some.


And I'm not betting it this year.


In fact, I'm not betting any race on a track that's owned and operated by the Stronach Group. This includes anything ran at Gulfstream Park, Gulfstream Park West, Pimlico, Laurel Park, Golden Gate or Santa Anita.

Which means that, this year and for the foreseeable future, I will not be placing a wager on the Preakness. I will be a spectator.

I'm doing this for three reasons:

First: I am unhappy with the way TSG handled the horrific breakdown situation at Santa Anita, how they dithered while the horse racing industry took a black eye, and how they tried to appease PeTA before realizing that that group of crazies don't want safe horse racing, they want no horse racing at all. They also want all horses to be relegated to sanctuaries, thinking that "horse deaths will stop happening" if they are.  That alone shows you how silly these groups are and that they should never be engaged in matters such as this.

But TSG CEO Belinda Stronach reached out, provided them credibility, and now we're looking at the very real possibility of horse racing being eventually banned in California.


Second: The betting structure at TSG tracks is among the worst in the Nation.  Take-out, the portion of the betting pools that tracks keep, is incredibly high at most of their tracks. Quite often at the maximum rates that States will allow.

But it goes further than that. TSG has introduced the scourge of betting that are so-called "jackpot" vertical wagers, where a pick six pays only a tiny portion of the pool if their are multiple winners, and only pays out the entire pool (less the high takeout) if there is one single winning ticket.

Except on mandatory payout days, these wagering structures are punitive toward players, as they lower the expected return and allow the tracks to earn interest on money instead of returning it to horse players. Most jurisdictions have regulations that aren't current enough to contemplate wagering of this type, so the tracks are given carte blanche to payout whenever they want. In some cases they might carry a pool past the end of the meet, waiting until the next meet to hold a mandatory payout day.

Third: TSG is becoming more and more aggressive toward Off-Track-Betting pari-mutual sites such as BetAmerica that they do not control. If you're not familiar with this situation, TSG went to BetAmerica at the 11th hour and proposed onerous financial terms for BA to continue offering wagering at their track. The result of this is that anyone with a BetAmerica account, will not be able to use it to bet the Preakness card.

That's short-sighted, dumb, and ultimately will benefit TSG, but will further damage horse racing as a whole. It's as dumb as Twin Spires and their argument with TVG, fortunately cooler heads prevailed on the latter issue.

So, while I've analyzed the field and I've provided a sure-to-not-win Superfecta for the Preakness I will not be putting any of my hard-earned money into a Stronach ran pool.

That feels wrong, but I know it is the right thing to do.

Enjoy the races, good luck to your if you're betting.

Gambling Law: Sheldon's Political Donations Pay Off.

U.S. Now Says All Online Gambling Illegal, not Just Sports Bets. Bloomberg.


The decision by the US Department of Justice is a reversal of a 2011 interpretation that limited the poorly designed Wire Act to sports betting only.  This makes any and all gambling online illegal and will be challenged in court, especially by States that offer online Lottery sales based on the 2011 guidance.

This is also something that Sands owner, and huge Republican donor, Sheldon Adelson has lobbied for years to achieve. He's often argued, wrongfully, that by forcing gamblers to go to a casino they are somehow "protected" from the lessor Angels of gaming, prostitution, graft, theft etc.

This despite the fact that has been proven wrong by first person accounts, exposes, etc. Sheldon also claims that online gambling is a lure for children, while his casinos are not. Something that has also been shown historically to be untrue. 

What this ruling really does is attempt to eliminate a potential competitor for an industry who is seeing demand for it's product steadily erode over time.  Sands is uniquely unqualified to take advantage of any online gaming boom, as opposed to CET and MGM, so he's staunchly against it. He's an old man shouting at clouds.

Of course, in many states gambling in all forms, minus the lottery and on-track animal races, is illegal yet the biggest online gaming occur within their borders.  Texas, for example, has strict laws against gaming but has one of the largest illegal gambling markets in the US.

A better solution would be to repeal and rewrite the Wire Act, modernizing it and realizing that it's language is wholly incapable of regulating in a digital world. The Act itself is fatally flawed through it's failure to contemplate the current online marketplace.

Sadly, given what passes for leadership in politics this will not happen and gambling in America will continue to move in the black, offshore market, online causing either massive resources to be wasted running down individual gamblers or wasting Millions trying to hunt-down offshore book owners who reside in countries lacking extradition agreements.

Sheldon may be happier, but the actual affect of this will be akin to a raindrop hitting the ocean. Too much of the current online gambling market is occurring in unregulated areas.

At some point we're going to have to take a long look at how gaming is regulated in this Country, ridding the discussion of bad actors like Adelson and his compatriots would be a good start.

Sports Betting: FanDuel paid out Alabama Bets. I Have Some Questions.

A couple of days back news hit that FanDuel sports book decided to pay out all futures best on Alabama winning the College Football National Championship, over a month before the championship game is played.

FanDuel Already Paying Out Alabama National Championship Bets as a Reward to Early Bettors. CBSSports

From the article....

This week, the company announced that it is treating No. 1 Alabama as the champs already, paying out all future bets on the Crimson Tide to win it all that were made prior to 5 p.m. on Friday. That also includes any outstanding parlay bets that only required Alabama winning the title.
FanDuel says that it's motivation behind the move is to reward customers for jumping on Alabama early. Bama opened the season at plus-195 (nearly 2-to-1 odds), meaning a $100 bet would pay out $195. However, after a dominant season, the Tide now have minus-280 odds to win the title, meaning a bettor would have to pony up $280 for a chance to win $100.

This is great news if you had a futures bet on Alabama obviously.  Because you now have a built-in hedge that will allow you to make smaller, possibly higher payout, bets in the upcoming games basically risk-free.  Say you bet $1000 on Alabama at +195.  That would pay you $1,950. Then you go and make say, a $500 bet on Oklahoma (+416) to win.  Even if you lose you still have a profit of around $1500.  This is a luxury that you now have not afforded to a bettor who took early money on Clemson, OU or Notre Dame.

It skews the market.

It also relieves Alabama bettors of any of the risk they carried into the games, risk that is carried by backers of the other teams. It creates an uneven playing field and can potentially skew the market, lowering odds on other teams as this risk-free Bama money hits the pools, potentially watering down everything for other players.

How is this allowed by the New Jersey Gaming Commission and by other regulatory bodies in States where FanDuel operates?

How is this not considered market manipulation?

How is this not in violation of gaming rules?

If I had a futures bet on Clemson, Notre Dame or Oklahoma, (I don't btw, not a fan of futures bets for a variety of reasons) I'd be pretty pissed now. As a matter of fact I'd be livid.  Because you're rewarding other players for making bets in cases where the line just happened to drop quite a bit. You're essentially handing out participation trophies to Bama bettors.

What FanDuel is doing is skewing the market, and potentially limiting their exposure on underdog upsets by almost guaranteeing risk-free money into the market. It's like their subsidizing select bettors at the expense of others.

One of the biggest challenges for sports betting as it navigates a patchwork of state-led regulatory agencies is ensuring that the betting markets are wholesome and fair.  In this case FanDuel has failed the very market it is trying to establish.

This is different from "sign-on" bonuses and other enticements because those are available to everyone who can legally bet in a book. First deposit matches are the same.  But in this case FanDuel has selected certain bettors to win before the game is even being played.

I'm pretty sure this wouldn't fly in Las Vegas, where FanDuel does not operate books currently, nor should it.  New Jersey should look into this action to prevent it from happening again. The alternative is to do nothing and cast doubt on the integrity of sports betting in New Jersey.