Back to the much more positive sports gambling story. Ian Thomsen's Inside the NBA column leads with an interview with NBA Commissioner David Stern. One of the interview topics was the question of expanded legal sports betting given the Tim Donaghy betting scandal. Donaghy was a NBA referee that was investigated for betting on NBA games as well as perhaps directly influencing the games he was officiating. Another post discussing the Donaghy scandal is here.
In response to the question if sports leagues need to reevaluate their positions with regard to sports betting, Stern gave a very interesting answer. "The betting issues are actually going to become more intense as states in the U.S. and governments in the world decide that the answers to all of their monetary shortfalls are the tax that is gambling."
To the direct question if it is in the best interest of the NBA to legalize sports betting, Stern made the following quotes:
"It has been a matter of league policy to answer that question, 'No,' " he said. "But I think that that league policy was formulated at a time when gambling was far less widespread -- even legally."
"Considering the fact that so many state governments -- probably between 40 and 50 -- don't consider it immoral, I don't think that anyone [else] should...It may be a little immoral, because it really is a tax on the poor, the lotteries. But having said that, it's now a matter of national policy: Gambling is good."
"So we have morphed considerably in our corporate view where we say, Look, Las Vegas is not evil. Las Vegas is a vacation and destination resort, and they have sports gambling and, in fact, there's a federal statute that gives them a monopoly of types [on sports betting]. And we actually supported that statute back in '92."
"But it's fair enough that we have moved to a point where that leap is a possibility, although that's not our current position."
This is news. The NBA Commissioner recognizes times have changed, the public is gambling on sports regardless of legality and that governments have embraced gambling as no longer evil and as a source of revenue. He didn't go so far as to officially change the position of the NBA, but in my opinion, the leagues need to move in small steps. The NBA is more forward thinking than the other sports leagues, by allowing an owner of an NBA team to own a Las Vegas casino and offer sports bets as well as have the NBA All-Star game in Las Vegas. It would not be a surprise for me that the other sports leagues would prefer to have the NBA take the lead on this, with them following, without having to break the ice themselves.
In the interview, Stern stated that he didn't want the NBA to turn into a point-spread league (like the NFL). So, probably those kind of bet types is something that is giving the NBA pause with moving their positioning further. There are bet types available that could provide wagering on games, but avoid the issues with potential point shaving.
The first kind is betting on player performances similar to fantasy sports. The NBA sponsors fantasy games already, so this wouldn't be a stretch. The NBA could leverage YouGaming's patented concept of pari-mutuel fantasy wagering. This would allow win place and show betting, exactas, trifectas, etc., with regard to the statistics of NBA players. This kind of wagering doesn't involve the outcomes of any games. It would be very difficult to manipulate this kind of wagering as there would be so many variables to manipulate to get a certain outcome that it would be next to impossible. Also, since it is pari-mutuel, the more wagered on a particular option actually reduces the payout, which is a barrier to those who may want to wager large amounts on a particular option and reap huge odds. Another advantage to a wagering operator with pari-mutuel is that the operator gets their profit off the top, with the winners splitting the rest. A pari-mutuel system avoids the potential for loss which can happen with traditional bookmaking. The final advantage to this option is that it is patented, which can offer the NBA the ability to more actively control this kind of wagering in the US as patent law can be leveraged to shut down unauthorized wagering venues from being accessed from inside the US.
With regard to wagering on games, bets on a money line could be offered, avoiding point spreads. The operator will still have to ensure that the proper lines are set to obtain equal wagering on both sides, but there isn't a worry about by how many points a team wins.
A second option does involve total points, but in a different way than just a straight point total, which can be more easily manipulated. What might be offered is a point total option that pays out if the total is above a certain total or below a certain total, but loses in the middle. For example, let's say for a game the estimate is that a total of 180 points would be scored by both teams. Today, the total of 180 is offered as an over/under, which means you could wager on either choice, that more than 180 points are scored or less than 180 points are scored. This kind of wager was the wager exploited in the recent scandal.
What could be offered is a wager that would pay if the total exceeded, 187 or was less than 173. If the total points scored was between 173 and 187, the bet would lose. Maybe you set the lose spread a bit tighter to get more action, but you see the concept. If you set the spread tighter, maybe you can offer an option that paid if the total fell within a certain range, in the current example, the bet wins if the total points scored are within the range of 177 to 183 points. I think the best approach would be to explore the first range bet option first and then see how accurate the line setters are before offering the second option.
In both of the previous cases, there could be bet limits to satisfy the desire for wagering but not allow whales to wager huge amounts. Depending on the amount of risk desired, perhaps an upper limit of $1,000 per game. For the pari-mutuel fantasy option, since the operator cut is off the top, wagering limits aren't as necessary and probably aren't desired.
Again, the original SI story is at this link. Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/ian_thomsen/12/11/weekly.countdown/index.html#ixzz0ZbchHIGb
No comments:
Post a Comment