Posted Thursday, May 07, 2009 05:01 PMSo there is a new bill up for approval sponsored by Barney Frank and Jim McDermott. It is advertised as the reversal of the UIGEA that passed in the dead of night a couple of years ago and removed neteller from our lives and made it harder to move money.
Here are the specifics:
1. It is currently LEGAL at the federal level to bet on sports. This legislation does NOTHING to address the legality of wagering for the bet placer. It is still ILLEGAL to accept wagers. This wont change.
2. The new legislation excludes any business that handles sports betting. So this does nothing to open up sportsbooks moving money easier.
3. The new legislation will license gambling establishments. These will include establishments that offer online BJ, craps, and poker etc. - NOT SPORTSBETTING.
4. Any company that gets this license will pay a 2% tax on all deposits.
5. Any company that gets a license will be required to provide to the IRS a summary of all wins and losses by player.
6. There is language about protecting the addicted gambler, children etc - useless.
7. The UIGEA is delayed from being enforced on Dec 1 09 to Dec 1 10 (this is useless because it is essentially unenforceable more than what they do now).
So in a nutshell - the govt has realized that they are missing out on a big revenue stream - both from taxing the gaming business but also the player. This is a plan to get both. This is not a plan to overturn the UIGEA.
This is also not a plan to accept sporst betting as a form of government sponsored gambling. The govt thinks poker and table games are fine, but not sports betting. I guess the poker lobby is much stronger than the anti sports gambling lobby (the NFL, NBA etc).
So thats really it. In the end, even if this passes, I am not convinced a company like pokerstars would even participate. Yes, it would be much easier for them to receive deposits - but it would cost them 2% on all deposits, the cost of the license itself, and a presumed loss of customers who will be very pissed that the govt will be getting a log of their wins and losses. I guess this will come down to a business decision for companies like PS.
The big winner here is land based US casinos like Harrahs who are struggling now, but are foaming at the mouth to be a govt sponsored online gambling company - which they will be with very little effort.
For the player, if you play a lot of poker, and dont mind the govt knowing your wins and losses - there will be very easy ways to deposit and receive money from a harrahs or similar. Im sure they will accept CC's, and online banking transactions - and in that respect this will help a lot of people win at a online poker table and collect their money 5 minutes later.
Unfortunately, it will do nothing for the guy who wants to bet on a football game in 5 minutes but has not money offshore.
As the MLB season is upon us, it might be time to think about your strategy for betting bases. There are 2 main schools of thought for handicapping, handicapping a winner - or handicapping a line.
From my perspective, the vast majority of MLB bettors handicap a winner. They come up with reasons to bet a team and while the line comes in to their thought process, they are looking for a winner. This leads to betting lots of favorites, and often paying too high of a price for teams. Chasing is not only for bet amounts - a lot of people chase a line too - thinking "if its a winner at -150 it is a winner at -160 so Im still betting it". In my opinion, this is a recipe for longterm MLB disaster.
The second way to bet baseball is to handicap a line, and bet on the side that gives you the most value in relation to your line. When you come up with a line, you are not coming up with the line you think will be closest to the betting line - you are coming up with a line that you think is an accurate reflection of results. If those 2 teams played 100 times, the line you handicap would break a bettor even if they took one side all of those times.
Using this method, you could end up on either side of any game on any day based upon what the line is, regardless of whether you think they will win that day or not. In MLB you are often betting on teams you think have a better chance of losing that day than winning, but the line is the great equalizer. Lots of guys go sub .500 in MLB and win lots of money.
Baseball, more than any other sport, is a longterm venture. So overpaying even 3 or 4 cents will kill you longterm - its just like paying a tax. Do yourself a favor and get numerous outs - and always always always bet the best line you can - and make sure you have reduced juice books in that mix. Dont make the mistake of saying "5 cents is no big deal" - it is a big deal - every penny is a big deal on lines.
The average bettor would be better off line shopping and betting the best available line than increasing his win percentage by 3%. For some reason, people like to put all of their time in to handicapping and then pay too much for the team they bet.
Remember - the number one determinant of longterm sportsbetting success is how often you beat the closing line and by how much.
So the next time you read someones writeup and it is loaded with comments about how they think a pitcher will come to play, or how a team is motivated, or anything of the sort - remember one thing - all of that doesnt matter if you are paying too much for that team - and if that line is 10 cents too much you should be playing the other side.
In my opinion, the only way to make money at MLB longterm is to handicap the line by predicting results, and betting whichever side is value in relation to that number. This takes a totally unemotional approach, as you cant "fall in love" with any team on any day, but instead you will be falling in love with your bankroll as you profit on the marathon that is MLB.
GL all
It seems like I cant read a post at Covers anymore without a mention of who the "public" is betting, and at what percentage. I will admit, I have strong opinions (almost all negative) about the validity of these percentages, what they mean, and the seemingly endless inability of anyone to provide any sort of statistics with history of how to use them and what to expect.
But yet it is so prevalent in how people pick their games they must know something I dont, so Im keeping an open mind and putting this out there as an honest attempt to gain meaningful information. Currently, all I have is anecdotal answers of personal experience, but no facts. Its always things like "I use the numbers, but I use other stuff too" or "I am 10-4 in my last 14, its working!". You get the same kind of answers when you ask someone "is there life after death". Im trying to draw a line here between faith and science - so I will ask the follwing questions to anyone who will answer:
1. Where does a company like sportsinsights get their numbers?
2. Why would any sportsbook give up to sportsinsights (or anyone like them) any information about betting patterns?
3. What type of sportsbook gives up these numbers? If crappy sportsbooks with 500 dolar limits are the main contributors, what good is that? Does pinnacle really give out these numbers? Try walking up to a Vegas sportsbook and ask the manager about their handle - let me know what they say....
4. Think about the business model of sportsinsights. Spread a popular belief that you know more than the average gambler, then charge for that info - sounds a lot like a tout in different clothes if you ask me. Explain sportsinsights motivation to be forthright in any capacity.
5. Assuming the numbers are real, and from a real sporstbook, and from legitimate sportsbooks - what do they mean? What - specifically - do you do with them and why would that make any sense?
6. Do people who bet more money win at a higher percentage than those who dont bet as much?
7. Please provide any history, statistics, or a model of when to use the numbers and how. Not a vage answer - but specifics - with backup. Example: When a team is 80% or higher, and the line has moved 1 point in the opposite direction, that team wins at a 58.5% rate over the past 5 years.
Im sure the answers to the above will provide a platform for more follow up questions, but considering I have never seen an answer to the above - I wont hold my breath.
This is not bashing those that use these numbers, or an attack in any way, it is an attempt to understand and inject some rational discussion in to what appears to be a totally irrational subject.
Everyone has their own opinion about these numbers - but everyone uses them differently - and that is always trouble from a statisctical relevancy standpoint. If something is statistically relevant, there shouldnt be varying opinions on how to use the numbers or what they mean, it should just be self evident.
My opinion going in to this discussion is that these numbers are absolute hogwash - an urban myth spawning an industry to suck more money out of lazy gamblers looking for easy answers to complex questions. So someone please change my mind.....
Placing a wager on sports is totally legal at the federal level in the US and is not governed by the Wire Act. The act of accepting wagers is what is covered by the wire act, an important distinction.
Let me quote the ruling that has stood since Nov 25, 1981 and has NEVER been challenged (USA vs Robert Baborian 528 F.Supp 324 paragraph 5):
Congress intended the "business of gambling" to mean bookmaking, i.e. the taking and laying off of bets, and not mere betting. The provocative question is whether this is still the proper definition when the bettor wagers substantial sums and displays the sophistication of an expert in his knowledge of odds making. This court concludes that the statute simple does not covers such a situation. This court finds that Congress never intended to include a social bettor within the prohibition of the statute and that Congress did not contemplate prohibiting the activities of mere bettors, even where, as with Mr Baborian, they bet large sums of money with a great deal of sophistication.
The truth of the matter is that the DOJ does interpret the law the way I stated it, and that is evidenced by the fact that there has not been a single prosecution at the Federal level since the case I cited (USA vs Baborian 1981). Not one single bettor has been brought up on federal charges since 1981 unless there was tax evasion, money laundering, or RICO thrown at them. The Wire Act simply applies ONLY to those in the business of gambling, and as defined by the judicial system that means someone who TAKES bets. The following are some articles on the subject - keep in mind when reading them that when they say sportsbetting is illegal under the wire act - the key definition is that of someone "in the business of gambling" which has been defined to exclude the person placing bets.
http://www.playwinningpoker.com/online/poker/legal/
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Federal-Laws/wire-act.htm
http://www.unc.edu/courses/2006spring/law/357c/001/projects/dsmatthe/federal.html (important pertinent text quoted in italics below - its about the 4th paragraph in the link)
Criticisms of the Wire Act’s Applicability to Online Gambling
- In the Business of Betting or Wagering
Even if the Wire Act is shown to apply to internet gambling it would only apply to gambling operators, since it expressly states that it applies only to those “engaged in the business of betting or wagering.” 18 U.S.C. 1084, U.S. Code Collection, Cornell Law School , at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001084----000-.html . Obviously, this would exclude individual bettors from any liability under the Act. This point is fairly uncontroversial, and is supported by the language of Congressman Emanuel Celler, then Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who stated during debate on the Act that “[t]his bill only gets after the bookmaker, the gambler who makes it his business to take bets or to lay off bets. . . It does not go after the causal gambler.” Jeffrey R. Rodefer, Internet Gambling in Nevada : Overview of Federal Law Affecting Assembly Bill 466, 8-13, athttp://web.archive.org/web/20040303190351/http:/ag.state.nv.us/hottopics/int_gamb_nv.pdf (quoting United States v. Baborian, 528 F. Supp. 324, 328 (D.R.I. 1981) (quoting 107 Cong.Rec. 16,534 (1961))).
At the state level, certain states have specific laws that make gambling illegal. Even other states (nevada, california, louisians, and washington) have specifically made online gambling illegal. Any way you slice it, NOBODY HAS EVER BEEN PROSECUTED FOR ONLINE GAMBLING. The closest thing was Jeffrey Trauman of North Dakota - who paid a 500 dollar fine and never went to court in the only known attempt at harassing an online gambler in US history.
http://www.gamblingandthelaw.com/columns/161_Busted_Online_Bet.htm
The politicians love to stand up and say that online gambling is illegal because it helps their causes and they can say whatever they want to further their agendas. The proof is simply that it is totally untrue. Sports bettors are exempt because they are not in the "business of gambling".
You might have heard of the UIGEA that was passed under GWB in 2006. This has nothing to do with the gambler, and everything to do with the credit card processors and banks. This does not criminalize anything for the player. In a nutshell, it makes it harder to get money back and forth, but if you can get money back and forth, you have done nothing illegal as the gambler.
If sports gambling was already illegal under the wire act why would they be trying to pass the proposition to update the wire act? They wouldnt need to. Politicians love to say that sports betting is illegal but then at the same time are trying to pass a bill that makes it illegal. Does that make sense to you? That should be proof alone.
Simple google searches on the subject will all be consistent - if it is a politician talking they will say the wire act makes it illegal and if it is an attorney or independent party they will state the facts - that no federal statute covers online gambling (poker or sportsbetting) if you are placing wagers and not in the business of gambling as defined in 1981.
Now this is all at the FEDERAL LEVEL. Every state is different on their state statutes with regards to gambling, but they are generally considered to be soft laws considering the lack of effort to even enforce them. But the federal law is clear to anyone who does not have an agenda, take bets and you are in trouble, place bets and you are ok.
People around here seem to think that results of football games could have only happened that one way. Even after a game is over, it is foolish to believe that the game you just watched couldnt have gone a totally different direction, under the exact same circumstances. Understanding this is a key to sportsbetting.
I make the metaphor of a ball hopper. Now lets say there are 100 balls, each one has a possible result of a specific game. This is the same as saying if that game was played 100 times, these are the most likely outcomes. All of these balls go in to the hopper, it is spun, and one is picked out that determines the result.
Your goal, and the product of whatever method you use, should be to have more balls on your side of the spread than on the other side of the spread. So in any given game, if you can have 60 balls on one side of the spread, and 40 on the other, you are in good shape.
So now pretend there is one of these hoppers on a table for every game on the schedule. You walk up and are asked if you want to bet on the outcome being on one side or the other of the spread, and you can bet whatever you want. In the first hopper you have 60 balls in your favor, second hopper 55, and third 52. You would probably vary your bets accordingly and bet more on the 60 ball hopper.
The problem is that people bet WAY too much on the 60 ball hopper, and fail to consider that there are still 40 ways to lose that bet. They also will ignore 55 ball hoppers because they have predetermined rules such as "only one hopper per day" or something else like that. You want to have money on all hoppers that are in your favor, with correct variances in that amount according to advantage, every single time you can identify a hopper that is to your advantage.
Its very similar to poker. If you play poker, you know that you want to have your money in the pot when you have the best chance to win. Does that mean that if you have AA you are always going to win? Nope, but you have more balls in your hopper than the other guy has. The reason that you dont see the best poker pros winning the WSOP every year is because you have to beat that hopper dozens of times in a row, and the chances of you doing that in an "all in" situation are very narrow so it takes some of the skill out of the eventual winner. There is no reason to put yourself "all in" in sportsbetting. Ever. You need to come up with amounts of your wagers that will allow you to overcome the variance in the hoppers - but if you can identify positive hoppers you will always be profitable longterm.
So what I am saying is that you need to have a long term approach. If you are only going to bet on one hopper in your lifetime, then you have to decide your risk / reward. But most of this are long term hobbyists or people with the intent of being profitable - and you have to think about it as hundreds of hoppers. Your goal as a handicapper is to get your money proportionally wagered on the best hoppers, and always bet on hoppers that have better than 50 balls in your favor. On any bet you make, you will be very lucky to have 60 balls in your favor, and you will never have 90 balls in your favor. Leave that for the touts.
Over time, if you have wagered more on the better hoppers, and picked the correct hoppers, you will win money.
The people that point to one result and try to think in retrospect that they either capped the game right or wrong based on that result are flawed. That was only one possible result out of many. Yes, you may have been incorrect about the percentage of results that could have come your way, but you are no more right about your pregame thoughts after a result than before it, because a single result is not showing you all the cards in the deck. Thats why I never get worked up about a win or a loss. Last night I had Auburn, and I thought I had 62 balls in the hopper, so I bet 3 units. One of the 38 balls against me was picked. That is going to happen. But it is important that one pick of the balls doesnt effect your ability to take advantage of the other hoppers that are lined up to come.
This might seem simple, obvious, and basic - but bases on the threads and responses here - it seems like alot of people put their entire wad on what they think is a 90 ball hopper and then wonder why they are out of the game.