BWI Sports Betting Thread
- Thread starter Grant Green
- Start date
More discussion on this between Gill Alexander and Bill Krackomberger.
Apparently DK future rules state that bets placed after last shot are voided. Lawyer claiming that they changed rule after this happened. Could be tough to prove that though.
Interesting point by BK. If the bettor wouldn't have gotten greedy and set his bets to win say, $100k, DK may have just paid him off to avoid bad publicity.
Next item up on the agenda is Illinois tacking on a 50 cent tax per bet. Would suck if it catches on with other states. Not a huge deal for larger bets but this kills the $5-10 bettor. a 5-10% tax on small bets like this make it impossible to win over the long run.
They are taxing the book. The books are going to pass on to the bettor.
I figured. They're not going to get the bettor to eat the entire 50 cents though imo.
I would be absolutely shocked if they don't pass along the entire tax. The $5 bettors aren't going to think it's that big of a deal (it is) and their other choice will be to not bet at all. It's not as large a percentage to the bigger bettors so they won't be as affected as much. Guys like Charles Barkley and JayZ won't blink about paying 50 cents on a 10K+ bet.
That would be incredibly easy to prove, unless DK actively lies and commits all sorts of crimes in doing so. You just see the rules before ... and see the rules after, and if they're different, they changed the rule. Not sure what you're trying to say, as that seems incredibly obvious.
You guys will all laugh at me, but I spent a few hours and about $25 in one dollar bets trying to figure out ping pong betting on Hard Rock the other day. Trying to see just how hard it is to get bets in when things fluctuate so fast - sometimes +300 to -300 in seconds.
It's really hard. I won a few decent + bets. But I don't have any of the $25 left.
It's really hard. I won a few decent + bets. But I don't have any of the $25 left.
Last year's Illinois team, IMO, was a 6-6/7-5 team that played a weak schedule and caught several huge breaks.
This year's Illinois? Probably another 6-6 / 7-5 team with an incredibly weak schedule. I think 7.5 sounds about right, but I might hedge to the over based on the early look at the schedule (which, in college football, can surprise from time to time)
First, I put the odds at 0.1% that this guy looked at the rules before he made the bet.
If he did, how does he actually prove that in court? Is it not his word against DK (who I'm sure would have no problem lying).
If he took a screenshot of the rules before the bet, I would think that would be part of the news story.
The rules are the rules. DK can be asked to produce the rules on Date X and Date Y and, unless they intentionally mislead (i.e. lie, in criminal fashion), what the rules were and are will be apparent to all. Quite straightforward.
As to proof of knowledge - that's implied. Just like, if he was alleging something happened and he didn't know the rules, the company could say "we published the rules, your knowledge of them is implied ... in fact, we had you agree that you read the rules when you signed up, and sent you notices whenever we changed them." The same applies, but in reverse.
And, given that they're alleging the rules changed, I'm guessing it's a pretty good bet (i.e. reasonably certain) that they have evidence of said rules before and after.
And if he did need to make an argument that he actually relied on these rules, I'd say the unique nature of his bets would be great evidence that he relied on the particular rules, since he was taking advantage of them. You usually wouldn't place a series of such bets, which were wholly reliant on a specific, unique outcome, unless you were aware this was allowed (or had such an understanding) by the rules.
Without knowing the particulars, I'd say the decision hinges on what the rules actually said at the time the bets were placed, and if they weren't clearly in favor of one party or the other, were they nebulous enough to allow DK to scoot out from accountability based on other circumstances (industry practice, etc.). And changing the rules immediately after this bet, to "clarify" this particular circumstance ... if that did, in fact, happen, would speak toward the rules supporting the bettor ... why else, from the company's perspective, feel the need to change them if they were clearly in your favor?
Last edited:
Sounds like the senate version of the Build Back Better bill has some pretty harsh treatment toward gambling...It modifies the amount that can be used to counter your gambling winnings to 90% of your losses/expenses (instead of the current 100%). Should this end up passing, it will push those that do this seriously further and further away from onshore/regulated books, as it's pretty much impossible to win under those parameters if you're reporting your income.
Makes zero sense. Could you offset this by claiming additional cash (undocumented) losses at brick and mortar casinos?
If you're already doing things on the "up and up" (which of course is a small percentage), then you're already claiming any of those. The ones that are keeping detailed records and actually claiming anything would obviously slant towards those that are professional where this is their source of income and they need to be able to back it up in an audit (and/or those that win enough that they've got big $ transactions coming into their bank that need to account for them).
Cliff notes on what it actually means...assume that I wagered $900k last year and ended up having a solid year winning around 53.5% and returning $920k on those bets.
Previously, I'd have to claim that $20k in earnings (I mean, it's claiming $920k then deducting $900k, but basically comes out to 20k), so if we want to go with those earnings falling in the 24% tax bracket, I end up paying $4.8k in taxes on it and netting $15.2k.
Now, under the new bill, I'd still have to claim that $920k, but now can only deduct $810k, so that $110k is considered income. That would surely push some of that into the 32% tax bracket, so we'll just blend it and go with a 28% tax rate. I'd pay $30.8k in taxes, with a total loss of $10.8k on the year.
Quite a difference, and makes earning a legitimate profit that much more difficult.
How do you document cash losses at a casino? I've done this on my tax return before to offset small poker tourny wins but never been audited and had to show proof.
On the Sports side, it's keeping tickets. I've never had to think about it on the non-sports side. Though there obviously has to be some level of subjectivity there.
I just like that you called it the Build Back Better bill and not the Big Beautiful Bill.
Oops…shows you how closely I generally follow politics. Knew it had a lot of “B”’s.
Some more discussion if interested. Rus Fox gets a lot of cred.
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/867-vsin-best-bets-30203597/
Sounds like Senator Masto (from Nevada of course) will be proposing legislation this week to repeal the gambling loss tax treatment change. Fingers crossed that enough politicians will understand what they've passed and do the right thing on this one.
Someone beat me by 10 seconds. When we get the long awaited Delete button, I'll remove that post.
Venus joins US Open as mixed doubles wild card
Venus Williams and Reilly Opelka were one of 14 teams -- six via wild card -- announced Tuesday by the USTA for its mixed doubles event at the US Open in August.
www.espn.com
Licking my chops hoping that these matches (and especially Futures) get posted giving way too much credit to the top singles players. That Errani/Vavassori team could be very undervalued…then again, maybe BOL/DK or whoever opens it will really know what they’re doing and mostly ignore Singles form. I’ll be searching for lines a lot over the next month.
I forgot to mention - I met Brent Musberger a few weeks ago at the club I work at. He was in town from Vegas w/ his Jupiter Hills pals and they have a reciprocal. He does some work for local degenerate gambling AM radio (VSiN) and one of his voice ads you hear a lot is "Remember...It's not Under til it's Over". Another is "Remember... wise guys don't bet the Jets. Ever."
So I talked to him about JVP and his face lit up like he was so happy to hear his name. Needless to say, he seemed like he loved everything about him.
So I talked to him about JVP and his face lit up like he was so happy to hear his name. Needless to say, he seemed like he loved everything about him.
Cool, he seems like a good guy.
His brother and nephew co-founded VSiN and Brent was the lead broadcaster when it started.
BTW - trying to get better at betting baseball before the first three weeks of lay chalk/gimme money ncaa football starts.
It's hard. I've learned that the Marlins and the Pirates Under bets seem to work out 3 or so times out of 5. Neither team can hit, but both can pitch.
Other than that, I might as well flip a coin if I want to bet on MLB.
It's hard. I've learned that the Marlins and the Pirates Under bets seem to work out 3 or so times out of 5. Neither team can hit, but both can pitch.
Other than that, I might as well flip a coin if I want to bet on MLB.
Last edited:
The takeout rates make Horse Racing impossible to win at for 99+% of people.
Naw it’s still the best odds. You got to win a ton of baseball bets just to break even at those odds. Bet $10 on a horse at 10-1 that gets you a bunch of plays