Fantasy Sports

Nevada Goes Protectionist on Fantasy Sports Leagues

Requires Draft Kings, FanDuel to get gaming licenses to operate in state

|

Taking food out of the mouths of government file clerks, they are.
Draft Kings

For the first half of the year, Nevada logged more than $5.5 billion in taxable revenue from gaming and related entertainment. That worked out to about $500 million in taxes collected up until the end of June. Nevada saw nearly $4 billion in sports betting in 2014 and the numbers have been increasing for years.

So it should probably not comes a surprise that as daily fantasy sports leagues start getting more and more attention, Nevada would notice that those top national leagues are promising billions in winnings (it's impossible to ignore, given the ad blitz). And what happened next is extremely predictable: Nevada both wants to protect its powerful gambling industry and probably also get some of that revenue. The state has declared that fantasy sports leagues count as gambling. If those national leagues want to allow Nevadans to participate, they'll have to get gaming licenses. From ESPN:

FanDuel, one of the two most prominent daily fantasy operators, said in a statement released Thursday night that it is "terribly disappointed that the Nevada Gaming Control Board has decided that only incumbent Nevada casinos may offer fantasy sports."

"This decision stymies innovation and ignores the fact that fantasy sports is a skill-based entertainment product loved and played by millions of sports fans," Justin Sacco, director of communications for FanDuel, said in the release. "This decision deprives these fans of a product that has been embraced broadly by the sports community, including professional sports teams, leagues and media partners.

"We are examining all options and will exhaust all efforts to bring the fun, challenge and excitement of fantasy sports back to our Nevada fans. In the interim, because we are committed to ensuring we are compliant in all jurisdictions, regrettably, we are forced to cease operations in Nevada."

Draft Kings made a similar statement. The argument that winning fantasy sports leagues involves skill, not chance, does not matter in Nevada, and the chairman of the Nevada Gaming Control Board was very blunt about it. The government decides what is and isn't gambling, not logic, he said.

Nevada will then join Arizona, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana and Washington as states that don't allow fantasy sports leagues. Now whether players in those states find ways to participate in these games anyway and therefore keep their winnings (in the event they actually have any) secret from the tax collectors entirely, well, I'm sure that's not happening at all. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

137 responses to “Nevada Goes Protectionist on Fantasy Sports Leagues

  1. Legitomatica regulata.

    1. You’re a towel!

      Happy Friday, Agile!

      1. HF back atcha, Al.

    2. Is that a lost Police album?

      1. No, that’s Vagina Dentata.

          1. +1 in the stink

  2. I don’t understand the technical aspects of this. Are these states going to implement a Great Firewall of China to keep their citizens from going to the websites to participate? Can they somehow prevent payments to their citizens?

    Fuck these states.

    1. No, they’re just going to capriciously bring the hammer down on anyone who isn’t careful enough in concealing his/her winnings from the tax man.

      1. Selective enforcement, FTW.

    2. AG files suits against the websites

      Subpoena records of winnings for persons residing in their state

      1. That sounds like a lot of work. Remember, bureaucrats are exceptionally lazy, useless fucks, AGs included. It’ll probably be more like what Hugh said. They’ll catch the dumb ones, and probably anyone who pissed off the AG or one of his pals, but they go to the effort of fully enforcing the law.

        1. They might be lazy but there’s millions in criminal penalties to be levied against the companies if they don’t comply

    3. I imagine that if you have an address in the state they won’t send the check.

    4. Particularly difficult in NV where they don’t collect state income tax so they won’t see the winnings there.

    5. No, the sites will have to set up processes to prevent customers from using their services based on IP addresses. On top of that (since there are ways to get around IP address bans), they’ll likely start banning people if there credit card address or bank routing number is Nevada.

      1. If a site is willfully found to be allowing Nevada residents to use the services — or even if it just doesn’t instituted sufficient “internal controls” — they’ll get sued, fined and/or prosecuted. Regulators are very good at fining the shit out of companies for insufficient “internal controls”.

        1. You didn’t do our work for us so now you owe.

          1. Well, yes. That, generally speaking, is how law enforcement works. The law really isn’t pro-active, it’s reactive. You tell people what you expect, and you occasionally check up on them and slap ’em with whatever legal action is prudent if they’re in violation.

            Just what would you expect?

  3. Textbook bootleggers and baptists story, no?

    1. Pretty much. “It’s evil and we want our cut.”

  4. I plan to start up a fancy sports league.

  5. “daily fantasy operators”

    My prurient mind filled in a lot of blanks there. I could not help but imagine a scenario involving Little Bo Peep and Bo Jackson.

    Its all fun and games until money changes hands, then its a “Vice” needing regulation. Commerce being the greatest vice of all, naturally.

  6. The inequality of winners in fantasy sports require government regulation that mandates an equal outcome.

    Players should take turns winning in an orderly fashion. Alphabetical order would be the best method of insuring fairness.

    /Aaandy Aaaardvark
    Northeastern Liberal Arts Junior College
    Prof. of M to F Black Midget Albino Transvestite Studies

  7. I just hope they still get to advertise.

    1. Those fucking ads ruin football games for me.

      1. Draft Kings! Draft Kings! Fanduel! Draft Kings! Fanduel! Fanduel!

      2. What I find strange is the two guys jumping up and down; what happens when the one guy finally points out that *he* won the money?

    2. I made a million dollars yesterday on fanduel in my panties.

      1. What fanduel was doing in your panties, you’ll never know.

    3. I’m making plans for a website that offers data to analyze sports, and these guys were the prime advertisers I’d be targeting.

    4. I’m making plans to start my own website offering analysis of sports, a great resource for people who do fantasy, and was hoping to get these companies to advertise

  8. The thing is, if the government recognizes some types of gambling and not others, then it has signaled legislative intent to allow only those approved types.

    1. The question is whether this constitutes gambling.

      If the same people always seem to end up at the last four tables in all the big poker tournaments, year after year after year, then it would seem that winning is a function of skill rather than chance.

      If I either come in first or second 90 percent of the time in 20 different year long fantasy leagues, each of which consists of eleven other paying players I don’t know, then are we talking about gambling or are we talking about skill?

      Some people gamble on the stock market, but investing in the stock market successfully is a skill.

      1. Another question is why should gambling even be illegal?

      2. Ken Shultz|10.16.15 @ 11:32AM|#
        “The question is whether this constitutes gambling.”

        I’d agree, unless the guys with the guns says it’s gambling, in which case the argument is dangerous to pursue.

        1. Nevada is saying unlicensed gambling is illegal, because 1) it compete with those they’ve already licensed and 2) they aren’t getting as much tax money as they’d like

          1. And they have the guns.

      3. Some people gamble on the stock market, but investing in the stock market successfully is a skill.

        Bernie Sanders would not agree. Then again, he is a raving idiot.

        1. Yeah, if eight out of ten businesses fail, then no one should be allowed to start a business.

          1. I was referring to his constant references to “casino capitalism” which imply that it’s nothing but gambling.

            1. I was referring to Sanders being a raving idiot.

              ; )

              1. I think you’re both right. About Sanders being a raving idiot.

      4. All of those things are a combination of skill and luck. As is regular old sports betting. It’s silly to pretend they can be purely one or the other.

        The real question is “so what?”.

        1. “The real question is “so what?”.”

          ^ This.

          1. The answer to “so what?” is that the world we live in is libertarian to the extent that our fellow Americans understand the implications of freedom.

            When people think that success is left to chance and has nothing to do with skill, then they start looking to the government to make them winners.

            The universe trends towards entropy. Other people’s success is not simply a result of chance. Even those that that inherit their wealth inherited from someone, ultimately, that did something…

            Maybe it was by conquest. Maybe it was through crookedness. Maybe it was through hard work and ingenuity. Maybe it was through perseverance. But it sure as hell wasn’t just because of chance.

            1. Understood. I’m agreeing that this distinction is arbitrary. Even roulette is not *entirely* up to chance – if you understand the odds you can play it more skillfully than someone who does not.

              This is why gambling simply shouldn’t be illegal. CA law ties itself in contortions around this such that we have casinos, but you can’t play poker in the privacy of your own home for money. Old folks’ homes get nailed for cash-prize bingo games. PTAs have to be very careful running things like raffles.

              Bottom line: debates over what outcomes are mostly by chance and which are mostly by skill should have no bearing on whether an activity is legal. If people want to risk their own money, they should be able to legally, period.

        2. Some things are pure luck. Roulette and keno are pure luck.

          Some things, skill is such an issue…

          My brother’s girlfriend was a card dealer in a Vegas casino. She could count cards in blackjack. She’d go into casinos that offered single decks, and she’d bet $100 on the first hand. If she lost, she’d leave. If she won the first hand, now she was playing with the house’s money. If she got up $1,000, which happened frequently, she’d leave.

          One by one, each casino told her she couldn’t come play there anymore.

          We’re all subject to probabilities in one way or another. My favorite Bible verse: especially after the commercial real estate industry hit me so hard…

          10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

          11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

          12 For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them.

          Ecclesiastes 9:10-12

          .

          1. Skill is being able to overcome chance, and some games lend themselves to skill such that the skillful can win over the long haul despite the odds.

            Insurance companies make a profit despite chance. Credit card companies make a profit despite the chance of default. And fantasy players can win–over the long haul–despite chance, too

          2. “If she won the first hand, now she was playing with the house’s money.”

            House money is a false concept. Once you have won it is your money. Should you continue to play you are playing with your money, not the house’s.

            1. You play blackjack against the house.

              When she walked out with a $1,000 of winnings in her pocket a few times a week, the house sure as hell thought of it as their money.

              They didn’t want her taking any more of the house’s money in the future. That’s why they told her she couldn’t come back anymore.

              1. I understand that BJ is played against the house. That has nothing to do with my statement.

                Once you take the house’s money it is no longer theirs.

                Many a broke gambler fails to grasp this concept.

                Do you grasp the significance of my handle ?

        3. There may be an element of luck to games like fantasy sports or poker, but they are still a game of skill. That is one reason casinos were slow in making Texas Hold’em available. There is no way for casinos to “game” the system. As poker became more popular and demanded it in casinos, casinos made poker rooms available where the house would just take cut (known as the rake) for running the game.

          And there is also video on YouTube of a female poker player (sorry I do not remember her name and am too lazy to go look for it) who played an entire on-line tournament having her screen where her cards are displayed covered so she could never see her cards. She won the tournament, again while never seeing a single card in her hand. If that does not prove poker is a game of skill, nothing ever will.

          1. It’s a game of skill that involves a lot of chance. People can be good at it and win over time, but any particular hand you can lose purely by chance.

            I think it’s just ridiculous that the legal distinction needs to be made. If people want to throw money away, that’s their problem. So I’m just arguing for fun.

            1. Baseball and football are games of skill that involve lots of chance. After 162 games it still isn’t totally clear who the best team or bet player is.

            2. Baseball and football are games of skill that involve lots of chance. After 162 games it still isn’t totally clear who the best team or bet player is.

          2. “That is one reason casinos were slow in making Texas Hold’em available. There is no way for casinos to “game” the system.”

            Poker was taken out of many casinos when the corporations took over and decisions were made by accountants and MBAs rather than fellow gamblers like Benny Binion at the Horseshoe where the World Series of Poker began. A casino’s take from poker is less per square foot than it is from table games but especially from slots. After a few years the accountants and MBAs looked around and began to realize that many poker players have bad habits and some can’t walk past a crap table. They also realized that many poker players brought their wives if they were from out of town and the wives played slots while the husbands played poker. This was something the old timers and mob guys already knew

            1. As far as making holdem availabe over other poker games that was a quick move.Once holdem became known outside of Texas it was quickly adopted by the casinos who offered poker and more and more began to by the 80s. Holdem is a much faster game than draw and stud therefore the house cuts the pot more often and makes more money.

              A roommate of mine was a one of the first house employed holdem players at the Commerce casino in LA back in the late 70s. We had been playing holdem quite a while in Texas by that time. I was offered a job there as well but couldn’t take the step. He was 10 years older then me and a much better player than I. He went there with a bankroll that would fit in one front pocket and came back to Texas about 15 years later and retired a millionaire.

      5. I think it has little to do with whether something is considered ‘skill’ v ‘luck’. The daily fantasy leagues can’t exist without the company itself (the tote board) setting the prices for the players. So this isn’t the same as either an annual league (where the players set the prices – and Mike Trout can only be owned once) or a March Madness pool (where the league participants themselves determine how the pool is scored in case everyone picks the same winner)

      6. The question is whether this constitutes gambling.

        There is a specific exemption for fantasy sports in the federal online gaming statute.

        Nevada, of course is free to be more stupid and authoritarian than the feds.

        1. Golly. And a specific legal exemption for fantasy sports can’t possibly be a textbook example of cronyism. Yeesh.

      7. it definitely counts as gambling. you play a game, and get paid based on outcomes that you cannot control. skill does not change if it is gambling. it just means you have done the research or done the math to make a better judgement on your odds.

        1. It takes skill to learn the odds and make better judgments.

          1. still gambling. the same is true with black jack, poker, and just about every other odds based game.

            (and to be clear, I’m not saying the government should interfere, just that the definition being used is accurate)

      8. “The question is whether this constitutes gambling.”

        DFS tests your knowledge of the game. So it’s a lot like investing in the stock market. Knowing the rules alone won’t get you anywhere.

  9. The government decides what is and isn’t gambling, not logic, he said.

    That’s a sort of shockingly refreshing level of honesty that they’re scum and proud of it.

  10. There’s bound to be a phrase in Latin or Anglo-Norman for “I got mine, fuck you.”

  11. Ghost gunz!!1!

    “These firearms have no markings on them,” ATF special agent Jill Snyder said. “No identifiers. No manufacturer markings. No serial numbers.”

    ATF agents explained the guns can demand markups of $1,000 above retail price — because they are untraceable.

    “This is all home made,” ATF agent Graham Barlowe said. “They hollow this out. They drill these side holes where these pins are and they are good to go.”

    And with no background checks for these weapons, anyone — even people with long criminal histories — can buy them. U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner said such weapons are increasingly being used in crimes.

    “High capacity rifles with silencers but without serial numbers are some of the most lethal weapons that criminals can get their hands on,” Wagner explained in a news release.

    I’m shaking in my boots.

    People this stupid are walking around with guns and badges.

    1. Not bad, but still not as stupid as the ATF guy who said airsoft guns can be turned into real ones:

      Moron ATF agent seizes 30 toy guns
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2sWiZ8BizI

      1. Bonus: at the 1:18 mark, the ATF rocket surgeon attempts to put the magazine backwards into the toy gun.

        1. You’d think that before enforcing gun regulations* one would be required to know something about guns, but apparently not. As long as you believe the right narrative – GUNZ ARE EVUL ESPESHULLY THE SCARY BLACK ONES WITH THE SHOULDER THINGZ THAT GO UP – you too can get a job as a jack booted thug moron.

          * remind me again, what do the words “shall not be infringed” mean?

          1. “You’d think that before enforcing gun regulations* one would be required to know something about guns”

            or drug regulations.

            or sex industry regulations.

            or banking regulations.

            or foreign policy actions.

            repeat as necessary . . .

          2. Did everyone see the clip of the Democrat Congresswoman claiming that outlawing high capacity mags would be a good thing because as they were used/shot up they couldn’t be replaced.

            The woman didn’t know that they could be reloaded and she is writing Federal Gun Policy. SMFH

        2. Well, to be fair, he is a “special” agent.

    2. And this is the kind of story that should be trotted out when people talk about ‘banning guns.’ How do you expect to shut down these kinds of operators, without creating a program that is likely bigger than the drug war?

      “High capacity rifles with silencers but without serial numbers are some of the most lethal weapons that criminals can get their hands on.”

      Shaving down the serial number makes the gun super-lethal.

      1. Why would you point a silencer on a rifle? If you have a rifle, you can shoot from far away and don’t have to worry about alerting people and having to escape.

        1. Suppressors are pretty pointless without subsonic ammo.

          1. Yeah, the suppressor helps some, but the supersonic crack is the bullet.

            Tell me, Officer Fulldiapers: How many crimes have been committed with “high capacity rifles with silencers but without serial numbers”?

        2. And they are not fucking SILENCERS! They are suppressors.

          1. Meh. Common usage is what it is.

          2. SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER, SILENCER!

            *glares at WTF*

    3. Yes. Serial numbers make weapons less deadly. Somehow.

      I’m pretty sure that criminals can also buy guns with serial numbers illegally just as easily as they can guns without. And that they pay a big premium for those as well. Because they don’t have the option of going to a store and paying the regular retail price.

    4. You’ve gotta do it like Shaggy. G-g-g-g-ghost GUNSSSS!

    5. “High capacity rifles with silencers but without serial numbers are some of the most lethal weapons that criminals can get their hands on,”

      I’m curious as to how guns without serial numbers are more lethal than guns with serial numbers.

  12. Once in a while, I try to explain to people that most laws are not meant to protect everyone, but instead serve to help one group and hurt another. Here is another example of that.

  13. It should be noted too that Nevada has legalized online sports betting for Nevada residents. You have to show a Nevada ID to open an online account. The service has been promoted heavily by Station Casinos, which is an off strip casino chain that builds casinos that cater almost exclusively to locals.

    Take away the ability of locals to play fantasy football, and they will flock to Station.

  14. Rube: “Is this a game of chance?”

    W C Fields: “Not the way I play it- no.”

  15. How is this protectionist when Nevada is simply saying that these are gaming and all gaming has to be licensed in their state? There is no new set of laws here and no cronyist application of them. And presumably no one is arguing that Nevada is gonna start using ‘licensing’ as a bureaucratic way of eliminating gaming in Nevada.

    Reason clearly doesn’t have any problem with everyone being required to get licenses for every freaking thing they do – see marriage license ‘equality’ a few months back. So what’s new here that Reason somehow feels compelled to argue against equality re this specific sort of license? Is this merely some Randian problem – that if property needs to get a license then it is protectionist whereas non-property humans can be licensed at will? Is this just the preliminary stage of the upcoming BS arguments defending the TPP as ‘free trade’ where people are subject to all sorts of arbitrary crap from government – but property is able to bypass all possible national laws that impact it in favor of a separate cronyist multinational system that they themselves control and have bought?

    1. The krokodil is kicking in pretty early this morning.

      1. Nah, that amount of babbling derp can only be the result of BATH SALTZ!!!1!!!!!!!111!!!!

    2. Well, for one thing, the State of Nevada isn’t discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation, sex, race, creed, color, or national origin. So, I don’t know how comparable this is to the government discriminating against gay people.

      For the second thing, the State of Nevada isn’t treating everyone equally. For instance, CBS Sports has been offering annual draft leagues (rather than daily draft leagues) for years. It’s on a sliding scale, where the higher the buy in, the bigger the payout when you win. You can join a league for hundreds and win thousands. Or you can join numerous leagues.

      These sorts of leagues are presumably unaffected by Nevada’s decision.

      In the third place, I’m not convinced that libertarians need to stand for violating everyone’s rights in equal proportion. Sending the rest of us to internment camps, too, is not the libertarian solution to sending Japanese-Americans off to the camps. Equal rights before the law doesn’t work that way. The idea that violating one group’s rights somehow justified the government violating everyone else’s rights too is patently absurd from a libertarian perspective.

      1. If the problem is that the police are beating up black people, the solution isn’t to make the police beat up more white people.

        …fer goodness’ sake.

        1. That’s just silly assuming you’re talking about the marriage license equality thang. The sole purpose of that argument was to redefine the tent of ‘approved adult couple license’. VERY few libertarians – and certainly not Reason – ever made more than a token argument about getting government out of marriage. Rather the common argument was more along the lines of – if government is gonna beat up single individuals (or non-approved coupled); then lets make sure government continues to beat up ‘single individuals’ in a ‘nondiscriminatory’ manner.

          1. “VERY few libertarians – and certainly not Reason – ever made more than a token argument about getting government out of marriage”

            You mean beside nearly everybody here every time the issue ever came up?

            1. He’ll point at Shika Dalmia, and claim she’s representative of people here.

            2. JFree obviously can’t read.

          2. There is approximately zero chance that government is going to stop being involved in marriage. The possible outcomes were the status quo, or more equal protection for same sex couples. Despite this fact, libertarians argued for this every time the issue came up. You are just making shit up.

            The disparate treatment of single people and unmarried couples is a problem. But it has a lot more to do with tax law and other regulations than with government recognition of marriage itself.

            1. Oh get real. The federal government first became involved in mandating marriage licenses by the states in 1923 (the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act). Some states certainly required them before that – but obviously the federal government would not have created that mandate if all states did. I certainly expect libertarians to be complete ignoramii about history but 1923 is hardly the age of prehistory. How did your great-grandparents ever freaking deal with marriage without the government being involved? You saying there is zero chance you can learn how they did it?

              The purpose of that law was to eliminate ‘common law marriage’ (more accurately called sui juris – of your own right) over time – which is precisely a marriage that government is NOT involved in licensing. That is not some obtuse concept. Almost everyone knows what common law marriage is. As recently as 2005, Pennsylvania banned it – and there was not one purportedly ‘libertarian’ voice raised in opposition to that. You will I hope forgive me if I don’t view dogs barking on the Internet as ‘libertarians’ in any meaningful sense.

              1. What *is* your point, exactly?

              2. Of course it’s possible to get by without legal marriage in today’s world. It was the only choice for gay people accross America until earlier this year.

                And that strategy is quite simple, and the same as getting by without health insurance.

                “Don’t get hurt. And if you do, hope real hard you get lucky.”

          3. “VERY few libertarians – and certainly not Reason – ever made more than a token argument about getting government out of marriage.”

            That’s factually incorrect.

            Besides, much of the argument was a reaction to states around the country specifically prohibiting gays from getting married.

      2. “CBS Sports has been offering annual draft leagues (rather than daily draft leagues) for years. It’s on a sliding scale, where the higher the buy in, the bigger the payout when you win. You can join a league for hundreds and win thousands. Or you can join numerous leagues.”

        Just for the record…

        http://www.cbssports.com/fanta…..s_football

        You can bet up to $999.99 in one league to win $5,000 for first place or as little as $39.99 in one league to win $200 for first.

        And just so nobody thinks I’m pumping this up for my own benefit, if you play against me in any league at any level, I will take your money and laugh in your face–and I’m not kidding. Football or hockey. My winning percentage is actually higher in hockey. I suspect that’s because Canadians can’t play–and it’s a style of pool and play they’re not generally familiar with.

        1. That payout ratio tells me that CBS is actually NOT a gaming establishment. They are certainly taking an obscene amount of the pool (I assume they host 10-team leagues so they are taking 50%) for whatever admin services they purport to provide. But annual leagues existed long before CBS got into it and long before the Internet for that matter. Those annual leagues are, at core, private gaming among individuals. By that I mean purely – the individuals playing the game are the ones who create the game. CBS is a HOST of that gaming – not the CREATOR of the gaming with something at risk in the game itself.

          Daily fantasy leagues cannot exist without the entity at the center. That entity creates the prices (similar to a tote board at the horse race track). It allows, eg ‘Mike Trout’, to be owned by anyone and everyone who pays that price. So there is no such thing as a ‘league’. What those daily fantasy sites call a ‘league’ is nothing more than the sum total of everyone playing their game that day. Which is why they can promise lottery ticket type payouts for a few minutes player effort – rather than 5:1 rewards for a season’s effort. Further, if the company itself screws up that pricing or the promised rewards; there is a HUGE incentive for them to then commit fraud. They are absolutely a gaming establishment – not just a host.

          1. What does any of that have to do with why the State of Nevada is treating CBS differently than FanDuel?

            1. what he is saying is that CBS takes in the same amount of money per player, and pays out the same amount to the league, regardless of the outcome. they are facilitating the game, but have no stake in the outcome.

            2. Because the DFS sites are creating the game. They are risking shareholder capital on the results of the games themselves – and their profits are a result of the bets made in those games. So they have an incentive to change the game itself for purposes of their profits. Presumably Nevada has enough of a history with gaming there to believe that that creates potential problems – so they require all those sorts of entities to get licenses. Including the specific provision re ‘sports pools’.

              Just as an example – if FanDuel misprices its players and the bets aren’t balanced; FanDuel itself could well have an incentive to bribe the actual players/teams to throw games so that their imbalanced book doesn’t pay. Or FanDuel could do what a couple dozen national sports pools do every January – they shut down and the people behind it steal everything and disappear before the final payout come Super Bowl time. http://www.bettingtalk.com/nfl…..las-vegas/

              CBS is renting a table (or server space) for a poker game. The actual results of the players – or the sports teams – doesn’t matter one whit to them.

              There may be all sorts of reasons to argue that gaming establishments shouldn’t need licensing. But arguing that FanDuel is the same as CBS is silly.

              1. “They are risking shareholder capital on the results of the games themselves – and their profits are a result of the bets made in those games.”

                The money you win in a weekly game is the money the other player(s) put up. It isn’t FanDuel’s money that’s at risk.

                The FanDuel sweepstakes games, in which thousands of people enter for a $1 million or more prize, that’s basically for advertising. That is an expense like any other business putting up a prize for a sweepstakes. That’s like McDonalds or your local chain supermarket giving away $80 million in cash and prizes by way of the Monopoly game.

                http://starlocalmedia.com/busi…..f3da5.html

                FanDuel isn’t putting up anything in daily draft leagues–and CBS isn’t either.

                All those companies usually put in a disclaimer saying that employees of the company and their families are ineligible–and, yeah, if FanDuel didn’t do that, then there’s the rub. But they aren’t putting up any of their profits against players in daily draft leagues.

                1. You say FD’s money isn’t at risk but price are set by FD at the start and don’t change as gamers buy players. Mathematically, something has to change – or those changes in buying create a pool risk. What happens if everyone picks the same roster of players? Does everyone lose? Does everyone get their money back? Does everyone win?

                  There could well be crony pressure occurring in Nevada. But the objections by the DFS sites indicate that they know full well that they are gaming establishments. Rather they want their federal exemption to apply also to Nevada law re gaming. They know that if they allow Nevada to call them ‘gaming’ their federal exemption will come under question. So they are doing something irrelevant to the actual issue in order to take themselves out of Nevada jurisdiction.

                  And EVERYTHING about that federal exemption (and the broader ban on online gambling itself) stinks of cronyism – passed on the last day before Congress adjourned, tacked onto a completely irrelevant bill, nothing in writing beforehand, nothing debated before any committee, added only after the bill had already gone through House/Senate reconciliation, passed unanimously by both House/Senate with no debate – with admin/exec branch details/regs put together in the lame-duck period between a Nov election and a new Congress/Exec.

                  1. “You say FD’s money isn’t at risk but price are set by FD at the start and don’t change as gamers buy players.”

                    You can start a one-on-one daily draft league with a prize as low as $1. The prices are set by the players–not FanDuel.

                    You start a league with a $1 price (or some other dollar amount) and open it to all comers. I typically go one-on-one, but you can also make it a five person league or a ten person league. FanDuel takes 10% of the entry fees.

                    The price of players is set by FanDuel, but if I don’t like the prices that day, I can elect not to play. It certainly doesn’t matter to FanDuel what the price is of the players. Their money comes from their slice of the entry fees–not the outcome of any game.

                    “What happens if everyone picks the same roster of players? Does everyone lose? Does everyone get their money back? Does everyone win?”

                    If there is an absolute tie, the prize is split evenly.

                    FanDuel makes its money from that 10% of the entry fees.

          2. “That payout ratio tells me that CBS is actually NOT a gaming establishment. They are certainly taking an obscene amount of the pool (I assume they host 10-team leagues so they are taking 50%)”

            That pay out ratio is for first place.

            There is also a large prize for second.

            I played back before they were offering prizes for second. The first prize number was the same as it is now.

            Pay in $99 to win $600 wasn’t a bad deal for me. …not when I’m batting a 45% winning percentage. I have a little under 1 in 2 chance of winning, and you’re paying me odds of 6-1? Where do I sign up?

            Oh, and I’ve got a 90% chance of coming in either first or second–and now you’ve got a second place prize bigger than my entry fee, too?

            The losers in my leagues might want the government to protect them from me and my fantasy skills, but I sure as hell don’t need the government to protect me from CBS or FanDuel.

            If FanDuel employees can view lineups before they go public and are taking all the easy one-on-one victims for themselves, then I’d be pissed off about that. But getting the government to shut down a skill game isn’t the solution. People flocking back to CBS and playing over the long term (until a better competitor emerges), that’s the solution.

            1. P.S. They’re 12 teams leagues.

    3. “Reason clearly doesn’t have any problem with everyone being required to get licenses for every freaking thing they do – see marriage license ‘equality’ a few months back.”

      The point is that if the government is going to insist on licenses for certain activities (like marriage), then it needs to issue those licenses without discrimination.

      This is not that – this is a situation where something that didn’t previously require a license is now being required to have a license, because the state wants a cut of the profits, and as Ken suggested in his 11:38 post, there *are* in fact local NV businesses whose interests are served by this.

      And saying “Reason clearly doesn’t have any problem with everyone being required to get licenses for every freaking thing they do” because they took a position that gay people should be allowed to have marriage licenses is just silly.

      1. And saying “Reason clearly doesn’t have any problem with everyone being required to get licenses for every freaking thing they do” because they took a position that gay people should be allowed to have marriage licenses is just silly.

        I disagree. It’s not silly. It’s stupid.

        1. It’s GAY, is what it is.

    4. Note this statement from the Chairman of the Nevada Gaming Control Board

      The government decides what is and isn’t gambling, not logic

      A blunt admission that the decision to declare an activity ‘gambling’ is based on arbitrary criteria.

      The State of Nevada see a big pile of money and wants to subject that pile of money to the additional taxes that are levied upon gaming.

      Its cronyist because real, honest to goodness gaming companies in Nevada encouraged the board to come to this decision.

      1. No.

        I have it on good authority that the benevolent state of NV is deeply concerned to protect its citizens from the evils of gambling.

      2. I kinda doubt that line is a direct quote. It’s un-sourced, doesn’t include quotation marks, and I can’t find that quote anywhere else online. So that’s probably a paraphrase, and I’ll have to beg forgiveness here, I doubt it’s a fair paraphrase at that.

    5. You aren’t required to get a license to be married. Just to have it registered with the state.

    6. How is this protectionist when Nevada is simply saying that these are gaming and all gaming has to be licensed in their state?

      That’s pretty much textbook protectionism, you know.

      1. No actually textbook protectionism is when foreign entities are subjected to a more onerous – and different – regulatory regime than domestic entities. It is only under an assumption of cronyist favoritism (like the recent post-GATT ‘free trade agreements’) that ‘everyone complies with the same set of laws’ is viewed as ‘protectionism’.

  16. Money is changing hands without the government getting a cut? Call SWAT!

  17. I have a $100 that says Sheldon Adelson is behind this. He is the one foremost in keeping poker off the internet, so it would be no surprise to me if he is the driving force behind this. I personally think this may be a good thing. If DK and FD (in which Comcast is a huge investor), all the poker associations, and Chris Christie (who has been fighting the federal government over their sports gaming laws) coordinate their efforts, maybe we can generate a national discussion and adopt some realistic gambling laws in this country. Hell, even NBA Commissioner Adam Silver is not opposed to legalized sports betting. And then we also have the fact that government can’t even run a gaming industry. Besides the fact that they have a monopoly, run the most crooked game in all the gambling world, Illinois has to issue IOU’s to winners of $600 or more. Fucking ridiculous.

    1. I won’t consider taking your bet unless you can prove you don’t live in Nevada. I don’t fell like being added to any more lists.

      1. *adds Dark Lord of the wood chipper to my list of people who don’t want to be on lists*

    2. Heard the MLB commish on Dan Patrick show two weeks ago. He used very interesting, but guarded, language that could be construed as supportive of nationally legalized sports gambling.

  18. OT: CBS trashes Truth and bans ads for it from CBS channels

    In a statement, a rep for CBS said: “It’s astounding how little truth there is in ‘Truth.’ There are, in fact, too many distortions, evasions and baseless conspiracy theories to enumerate them all. The film tries to turn gross errors of journalism and judgment into acts of heroism and martyrdom. That’s a disservice not just to the public but to journalists across the world who go out every day and do everything within their power, sometimes at great risk to themselves, to get the story right.”

    Shriek hardest hit.

    1. I hadn’t heard about this movie. My life is no less complete for not knowing about it.

      Ima go back to not caring.

  19. “…fantasy sports is a skill-based entertainment product…” Justin Sacco, director of communications for FanDuel, said in the release.

    Man, no matter which side of the debate you’re on can we all agree PR people need punched in the face?

    1. I won’t blame the PR department for phrases dreamed up by lawyers…

  20. The sites will ban ip address coming from those states that want a cut. The work around… set up vpn and spoof the ip address.

  21. Protectionist agencies gonna be protectionist.

    That said, the sites’ reliance on the distinction between skill and chance is, at best, open to challenge. They better be using some of their investment money for lawyers.

  22. I’m sorry. I still just don’t get fantasy sports. Much less betting on them.

    I’m sorry….

    *walks away*

    1. I don’t get it either.

    2. Dude #1: “Hey, here’s an idea! Let’s put together teams that don’t actually exist with players who may never play on the same team together and are actually playing on different teams in different locales on any given day! Your team’s performance will be based on how these players as individuals do.”

      Dude #2: “Hmm, that sounds silly. What would be the point?”

      Dude #1: “Well, I guess you could bet money on your team’s performance…”

      Dude #2: “OMG!!!! BILLION DOLLAR IDEA!!!”

  23. Someone should also mention (and it might as well be me), that the casinos in Vegas let their poker dealers play poker on the clock. They pay you your salary to sit there and play poker on the clock.

    They do it to fill out tables. Maybe you only have a few legit customers playing at a certain time of morning or late at night. They’ll fill the rest of the table up with dealers–who are generally pretty good poker players.

    If you ask the guy that seats you if there are any dealers playing the tables on the clock, they’ll tell you which table they’re sitting at and which players are casino employees. But you have to ask.

    Be aware, when you go to play poker in Vegas, that the reason regular players tip the pit boss is so he’ll seat kids and other obvious idiots at their table and send the other pros to some other table.

    What does that have to do with anything?

    Well, it’s kind of hypocritical for the Nevada gaming commission to let the casinos use their own employees to play poker against tourists and novices, on the one hand, and then go after daily draft leagues because of what the daily draft sites’ employees might be doing, isn’t it?

    1. Just for the record…

      http://www.poker-babes.com/pok…..ons/shill/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.