NHL & Vegas Part Deuces Wild: Betting it all on Black (Knights)

[Killion]

That entire article is a highly ignorant view and a whole lot of sour grapes.

Its hard hitting, definitely a hit piece but.... BUT.... its absolutely warranted. This is very obviously a fait accompli, the minute Bettman announced that Foley was being given reign to conduct a seasons ticket drive, sign up corporate sponsors, and theres Gary Bettman in Vegas to kick it all off yesterday. This isnt a game, the outcome predetermined. The reporter nails it with the comments that on first blush this seems pure madness, then you think no, maybe not, maybe the NHL's crazy like a fox and see's something here that the vast majority of people & fans who have followed this league for decades dont. So you do try to figure it out, look for positives and there are a few.

But are they enough to sustain a franchise long~term once the honeymoon wears off? We just dont know so I for one, going to keep an open mind. The journalist does pander to the audience in bringing up the ghost of Hamilton, none of this kind of attention being showered on Las Vegas being seen in Quebec, and all of this on the heels on the recent reports out of Sunrise & the entire Arizona fiasco. So ya, people are dumbfounded, confused, angry. For Foley & the Maloofs, the NHL, this is a high wire act no matter how you cut it, no matter how optimistic glass half full you wanna get about it. It appears to be a play pumping up franchise values with an Expansion Fee that only Las Vegas, desperate for validation, a city built on dreams and as surreal as it gets is willing to pay. And if their willing to pay it then why deny them? Roll the dice, let the games begin....

Im guessing here, pure spec, but Id bet Vegas & QC which would temper the disbelief with the former entering together so theres that. Seattle, Portland, who knows? No building, long way out. 2018/20 the earliest, and unless Paul Allens' pulled a 180, seemingly not willing to pay $170M for the Coyotes a couple of years ago I rather doubt he'd be interested AT ALL in dropping $400M+ on an Expansion team. Even for Seattle, that kind of a ticket price? Insanity on top of a building.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/las-vegas-inspired-by-jets-season-ticket-drive/

Winnipeg helped Vegas folks get their ticket drive going

I might drown in the irony from this article, but my estimation of TNSE just went up another few ticks.

 

[SilverPlaqueVII]

Heard the audio clip of Bettman trolling Vegas on Leafs Lunch today. Could be a bigger chance for Quebec.

 

[IceAce]

It's really not that hard to understand nor to find anything that sums it up. it was legislation to rule on transfer of funds online for illegal gambling, except for the industries that had powerful enough lobbies to gain statute exemptions, that being state lotteries, horse racing, and DFS. Congress/Senate does not have enough Barney Franks to get the same treatment for poker.

LOL because DFS has a stronger lobby than the online poker lobby that's mostly owned by people affiliated with megacasinos?

The UIGEA does not say DFS is not gambling, along with horse racing and lotteries. It's just saying its allowed to be gambled on as long as certain conditions are met.

Games of skill can be gambling. If two people wagered money on chess, that is still a bet. No one is bothering to run Chessduel though because its just not big, and under the UIGEA that would then be considered illegal despite being a game of skill.

Not really. If I bet you $20 that I can beat you head to head in chess. It's a game of skill and under the law its not gambling.

If I bet you $20 that Deep Blue can beat Gary Kasparov in under 10 moves, its a game of chance and thus gambling.

DFS, h2h, two people pick the exact same team, they still lose money because of the house rake.

there really is no house "rake" in DFS. Have you ever played? While it's certainly not a zero sum game as the DFS sites take some portion as a fee for setting up the games, you dont compete directly against the house.

The UIGEA can carve out whatever language they want to exclude DFS but at its essence, it still falls under the definition of gambling that the whole world adheres to. It's legal gambling, or what most distinctly call gaming.

Did I not get a copy of the Dictionary of the World where this was defined? Or are we talking about YOUR definition?

 

[gstommylee]

Heard the audio clip of Bettman trolling Vegas on Leafs Lunch today. Could be a bigger chance for Quebec.

I doubt it. NHL has set their eyes on a western expansion to balance the league. The focus is on vegas and Seattle. Hopefully if things go NHL's way and a arena gets finalized in Seattle later on this year, then the league will make their expansion announcement of Vegas and Seattle.

If things don't go NHL's way in Seattle then we are probably only looking at just vegas for expansion.

 

[BattleBorn]

It's already state law that Nevada-based teams are not allowed to be offered in the books.

FWIW, that hasn't been the case for 15 or so years, you can place bets on any Nevada team. Much to the dismay of anti-sports wagering types, UNLV avd U of Nevada games haven't been rife with point shaving incidents since the change.

 

[cutchemist42]

LOL because DFS has a stronger lobby than the online poker lobby that's mostly owned by people affiliated with megacasinos?



Not really. If I bet you $20 that I can beat you head to head in chess. It's a game of skill and under the law its not gambling.

If I bet you $20 that Deep Blue can beat Gary Kasparov in under 10 moves, its a game of chance and thus gambling.



there really is no house "rake" in DFS. Have you ever played? While it's certainly not a zero sum game as the DFS sites take some portion as a fee for setting up the games, you dont compete directly against the house.



Did I not get a copy of the Dictionary of the World where this was defined? Or are we talking about YOUR definition?

Took me 5 seconds to find a rake comparison chart for DFS? Poker players and horse players also dont compete against the house either. They are picking horses and card combinations that line up with certain expectations of future events, exactly in the same mindset someone drafts Roberto Luongo for a one day event. Sports in one day is as varied as poker probably is, and I would bet a high class horse race has lass variability than your average athlete over a week.

http://www.fantasysportsleader.com/rake-comparison/

The only difference is that the government wrote exceptions that were written out to allow for two of those because of bigger clout vs poker. I've read too many articles alluding to that fact that leagues like the NFL like DFS because it drives interests in players and wanted it to happen.

“It’s online gambling,” says Garry Smith, a professor at the University of Alberta and a research co-ordinator at the affiliated Alberta Gambling Research Institute. “You are risking money on an event with an uncertain outcome. Of course it’s gambling.”

Provide your definition of gambling then. The community at rotogrinders themselves disagree with you as players, they just acknowledge its legal gaming because of statutes vs illegal gaming.

I mean, this to me seems like one of the most active DFS message boards and they feel the same too.

https://rotogrinders.com/threads/fantasy-sports-debate-gambling-or-not-gambling-510932

 

[IceAce]

The only difference is that the government wrote exceptions that were written out to allow for two of those because of bigger clout vs poker. I've read too many articles alluding to that fact that leagues like the NFL like DFS because it drives interests in players and wanted it to happen.

While sports leagues may in fact support it (although they'll eventually want a cut of it at some point), you cant with a straight face tell me that DFS has more clout in lobbying the government than the casino industry.

Not to mention, the statute has also survived challenges in the Judicial branch as well (See Humphrey v. Viacom)

Provide your definition of gambling then. The community at rotogrinders themselves disagree with you as players, they just acknowledge its legal gaming because of statutes vs illegal gaming.

I'm not sure why the people at "rotogrinders" would be some form of expert opinion on the subject? Because they play fantasy sports?

Here's some interesting reads for you:

Defines the whole skill vs chance argument rather well:
http://www.ncjolt.org/sites/default/files/8_nc_jl_tech_59.pdf

The quote from your professor is a bit simplistic and dismissive to be honest.

 

[GuelphStormer]

Provide your definition of gambling then.

getting out of bed each morning

......


someone asked in the last thread aboot updates on the drive. does we has a website?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Its hard hitting, definitely a hit piece but.... BUT.... its absolutely warranted. This is very obviously a fait accompli, the minute Bettman announced that Foley was being given reign to conduct a seasons ticket drive, sign up corporate sponsors, and theres Gary Bettman in Vegas to kick it all off yesterday. This isnt a game, the outcome predetermined. The reporter nails it with the comments that on first blush this seems pure madness, then you think no, maybe not, maybe the NHL's crazy like a fox and see's something here that the vast majority of people & fans who have followed this league for decades dont. So you do try to figure it out, look for positives and there are a few.

But are they enough to sustain a franchise long~term once the honeymoon wears off? We just dont know so I for one, going to keep an open mind. The journalist does pander to the audience in bringing up the ghost of Hamilton, none of this kind of attention being showered on Las Vegas being seen in Quebec, and all of this on the heels on the recent reports out of Sunrise & the entire Arizona fiasco. So ya, people are dumbfounded, confused, angry. For Foley & the Maloofs, the NHL, this is a high wire act no matter how you cut it, no matter how optimistic glass half full you wanna get about it. It appears to be a play pumping up franchise values with an Expansion Fee that only Las Vegas, desperate for validation, a city built on dreams and as surreal as it gets is willing to pay. And if their willing to pay it then why deny them? Roll the dice, let the games begin....

Im guessing here, pure spec, but Id bet Vegas & QC which would temper the disbelief with the former entering together so theres that. Seattle, Portland, who knows? No building, long way out. 2018/20 the earliest, and unless Paul Allens' pulled a 180, seemingly not willing to pay $170M for the Coyotes a couple of years ago I rather doubt he'd be interested AT ALL in dropping $400M+ on an Expansion team. Even for Seattle, that kind of a ticket price? Insanity on top of a building.

It absolutely is not warranted in any way, shape, or form just based on the content within the article. The article is based on a visit to Vegas years ago, an ECHL team, and some made-up requirement of having to care about hockey before getting a franchise. Then to put the cherry on top, comparing a place like Vegas to Phoenix as if they're a legitimate thing to point to regarding Vegas' chances of success is ridiculous. There is absolutely no reasonable logic to be used to doom this franchise before it has even gotten off the ground which is what this article does and that's what is BS about that article.

And now that the ticket drive is yielding success that most even here didn't expect, the goal posts are being changed to after the honeymoon. You'll have to forgive me for not giving more credibility to the argument against when the bias from some is so heavy against the idea that they never gave it a fair shot in the first place.

 

[Fugu]

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/las-vegas-inspired-by-jets-season-ticket-drive/

Winnipeg helped Vegas folks get their ticket drive going

A couple interesting points:

"If we can help people have successful operations in other markets, I think it’s good for everybody," Riddell said in a recent phone interview. "The greater intention of everyone, to keep promoting the sport of hockey and have successful clubs in markets, I think is fantastic for everyone."

Something that was missing from some earlier expansions.

"We’d been working on our drive for quite some time because we kind of had a bit of a false start the year previous," Riddell said, referring to other relocation speculation. "We felt that we had a pretty good understanding of the market and what things would be important to them."

False start?

 

[PCSPounder]

I believe the state decided to allow gambling on Nevada-based teams based on a federal "argument" that the harm that "regulated gambling" did to sports was kind of proven by the original exclusion.

Meanwhile...

getting out of bed each morning

...I think this wins the internet today.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

"If we can help people have successful operations in other markets, I think it’s good for everybody," Riddell said in a recent phone interview. "The greater intention of everyone, to keep promoting the sport of hockey and have successful clubs in markets, I think is fantastic for everyone."

-->something that was missing from some earlier expansions

...and, for that matter, relocations.

 

[HanSolo]

Maybe but having a hockey team in Vegas is nonsensical. Bettmann seems to forget some of us actually care about the game and I don't just mean fans.

And what? A team existing in Vegas is gonna ruin the product for you? Get real.

 

[Cacciaguida]

The NHL only cares about if you have the arena and sustainability. And if you're willing to play their game. Location is only vital if it makes money. Sure there may be space in the western conference but you can't seriously expect me to believe they will only expand by one when there's plenty of markets wishing for nhl hockey.

400mil is just too much for a team not in the gta.

 

[Mightygoose]

Well it's been 24 hours since the launch.

Wonder how they did in day 1?

 

[BattleBorn]

Well it's been 24 hours since the launch.

Wonder how they did in day 1?

Radio silence pretty much since launch. I'm getting a bad feeling.

Could be that I'm reading too many articles on the ticket drive from Canadian news sources, though.

 

[cutchemist42]

While sports leagues may in fact support it (although they'll eventually want a cut of it at some point), you cant with a straight face tell me that DFS has more clout in lobbying the government than the casino industry.

Not to mention, the statute has also survived challenges in the Judicial branch as well (See Humphrey v. Viacom)



I'm not sure why the people at "rotogrinders" would be some form of expert opinion on the subject? Because they play fantasy sports?

Here's some interesting reads for you:

Defines the whole skill vs chance argument rather well:
http://www.ncjolt.org/sites/default/files/8_nc_jl_tech_59.pdf

The quote from your professor is a bit simplistic and dismissive to be honest.

First, I included the rotogrinders because their threads upon looking actually include some of the stuff you've already included. It's just that their community LOLs at the technicalities and just admits its a long-winded way to of saying we gamble legally on a game of chance and skill.

You can the quote is dismissive, but its the position of the Alberta Gambling Research Institute which features great periodic research into all parts of gambling from the U.s of Calgary/Alberta/Lethbridge.


So the case you posted involved a guy trying to use a 200 year old law, to which he wasn't party to any losses, nor knew any of the people who had losses, and tried to represent them? I can see why it was dismissed so easily. It was an interesting case, read it twice over TBH.

In addition to failing to plead the identity of the loser(s), the amount of each loser’s loss,
when the loss occurred, the nature of the “wager†or “bet†made between a “loser†and either of
the Defendants, Plaintiff does not allege, as he must under the statute, that (1) a “loser†failed to
bring suit within six months of losing the bet; and (2) his own suit is brought within six months
of the expiration of that “loser’s†time to sue

This Court will not
deviate from this analysis, nor should it extend the coverage of a 200-year old statute to an
activity far removed from the traditional gaming it was never intended to cover.

The case into a lot of the legalities between what is a prize and wager, so I can see why you included it. The legalities can't be argued in terms of how your government sees it, but in the end, this all boils down to a very long and legal way of saying it's not a wager. I mean, look at the legal definition.

The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 broadly prohibits Internet
gambling and related transactions. See 31 U.S.C. § 5361 et seq. That law confirms that fantasy
sports leagues such as those operated by Defendants do not constitute gambling as a matter of
law. See 31 U.S.C. § 5362(1)(E)(ix). Under the law, an illegal “bet†or “wager†specifically
does not include “participation in any fantasy or simulation sports game where, as here:
(I) All prizes and awards offered to winning participants are
established and made known to the participants in advance
of the game or contest and their value is not determined by
the number of participants or the amount of any fees paid
by those participants.
(II) All winning outcomes reflect the relative knowledge and
skill of the participants and are determined predominately
by accumulated statistical results of the performance of
individuals (athletes in the case of sports events) in
multiple real-world sporting or other events.
(III) No winning outcome is based –
(aa) on the score, point-spread, or any performance or
performances of any single real-world team or a
combination of such teams; or
(bb) solely on any single performance of an individual
athlete in any single real-word sporting or other event

(1) Bet or wager.— The term “bet or wagerâ€â€”
(A) means the staking or risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject to chance, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or another person will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome;
(B) includes the purchase of a chance or opportunity to win a lottery or other prize (which opportunity to win is predominantly subject to chance);
(C) includes any scheme of a type described in section 3702 of title 28;
(D) includes any instructions or information pertaining to the establishment or movement of funds by the bettor or customer in, to, or from an account with the business of betting or wagering; and
(E) does not include—
(i) any activity governed by the securities laws (as that term is defined in section 3(a)(47) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [1] for the purchase or sale of securities (as that term is defined in section 3(a)(10) of that Act);
(ii) any transaction conducted on or subject to the rules of a registered entity or exempt board of trade under the Commodity Exchange Act;
(iii) any over-the-counter derivative instrument;
(iv) any other transaction that—
(I) is excluded or exempt from regulation under the Commodity Exchange Act; or
(II) is exempt from State gaming or bucket shop laws under section 12(e) of the Commodity Exchange Act or section 28(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
(v) any contract of indemnity or guarantee;
(vi) any contract for insurance;
(vii) any deposit or other transaction with an insured depository institution;
(viii) participation in any game or contest in which participants do not stake or risk anything of value other than—
(I) personal efforts of the participants in playing the game or contest or obtaining access to the Internet; or
(II) points or credits that the sponsor of the game or contest provides to participants free of charge and that can be used or redeemed only for participation in games or contests offered by the sponsor; or
(ix) participation in any fantasy or simulation sports game or educational game or contest in which (if the game or contest involves a team or teams) no fantasy or simulation sports team is based on the current membership of an actual team that is a member of an amateur or professional sports organization (as those terms are defined in section 3701 of title 28) and that meets the following conditions:
(I) All prizes and awards offered to winning participants are established and made known to the participants in advance of the game or contest and their value is not determined by the number of participants or the amount of any fees paid by those participants.
(II) All winning outcomes reflect the relative knowledge and skill of the participants and are determined predominantly by accumulated statistical results of the performance of individuals (athletes in the case of sports events) in multiple real-world sporting or other events.
(III) No winning outcome is based—
(aa) on the score, point-spread, or any performance or performances of any single real-world team or any combination of such teams; or
(bb) solely on any single performance of an individual athlete in any single real-world sporting or other event.

The court case does not even provide for an argument of skill vs chance because the legal definition of bet/wager has that condition that was snuck at the end of the USA's Safe Port Act. I mean sure one can go ahead correcting everyone who calls it gambling with those long-winded legalities, but on its surface its seen as gambling.

Indeed, courts have made clear that
the question whether the money awarded is a bona fide prize (as opposed to a bet or wager) can
be determined without deciding whether the outcome of the game is determined by skill or
chance.

You could have wrote that condition in to make any poker tournament legal if they truly wanted to, it wouldn't stop poker players from admitting that yeah, what they do is in essence gambling. I mean, the DFS industry only got their big uptick after Black Friday when those educated poker players needed a similar fix.

Overall it felt like the case was dismissed because the 200 year old statute for losses associated to dice and cars could not have held up to modern forms of gambling we have today.

 

[TheLegend]

FWIW, that hasn't been the case for 15 or so years, you can place bets on any Nevada team. Much to the dismay of anti-sports wagering types, UNLV avd U of Nevada games haven't been rife with point shaving incidents since the change.

Interesting.... I lived in Reno in the late 80's so it very well could have changed. However doing some digging.....

http://gaming.nv.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=2900

22.120
Prohibited wagers; exception for an event other than a horse race, greyhound race, or an athletic sports event
.
1. No wagers may be accepted or paid by any book on:

(a) Any amateur non collegiate sport or athletic event;

(b) Any collegiate sport or athletic event which the licensee knows or reasonably should know, is being placed by, or on behalf of a coach or participant in that collegiate event. Each licensee shall take reasonable steps to prevent the circumvention of this regulation;

(c) The outcome of any election for any public office both within and without the State of Nevada;

(d) Any event, regardless of where it is held, involving a professional team whose home field, a court, or base is in Nevada, or any event played in Nevada involving a professional team, if, not later than 30 days before an event or the beginning of a series of events, the team’s governing body files with the commission a written request that wagers on the event or series of events be prohibited, and the commission approves the request; and

(e) Any event other than a horse race, greyhound race, or an athletic sports event, unless such event is:
(1) Administratively approved by the chairman in writing in accordance with subsection 3;
(2) After referral from the chairman, approved by the commission in accordance with
subsection 5; or

So if I read the above correctly, the NHL would have to file with the gaming commission if they didn't want wagering placed on a Las Vegas franchise.

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

A couple interesting points:

"If we can help people have successful operations in other markets, I think it’s good for everybody," Riddell said in a recent phone interview. "The greater intention of everyone, to keep promoting the sport of hockey and have successful clubs in markets, I think is fantastic for everyone."

-->something that was missing from some earlier expansions

""We’d been working on our drive for quite some time because we kind of had a bit of a false start the year previous," Riddell said, referring to other relocation speculation. "We felt that we had a pretty good understanding of the market and what things would be important to them."

-->false start?

Pretty well known that if Glendale didn't vote the team extra funds the year before, Winnipeg was ready.

 

[Fugu]

Pretty well known that if Glendale didn't vote the team extra funds the year before, Winnipeg was ready.

No, you're off by a year. Atlanta only came into play, allegedly, after COG approved the funds at the last minute. Same month.

 

[cutchemist42]

While sports leagues may in fact support it (although they'll eventually want a cut of it at some point), you cant with a straight face tell me that DFS has more clout in lobbying the government than the casino industry.

Not to mention, the statute has also survived challenges in the Judicial branch as well (See Humphrey v. Viacom)



I'm not sure why the people at "rotogrinders" would be some form of expert opinion on the subject? Because they play fantasy sports?

Here's some interesting reads for you:

Defines the whole skill vs chance argument rather well:
http://www.ncjolt.org/sites/default/files/8_nc_jl_tech_59.pdf

The quote from your professor is a bit simplistic and dismissive to be honest.

2nd article actually did not know how the case was going to procedd it seemed so some of it was pretty off. At the same time, the article acknowledges the sport leagues themselves backed the inclusion of fantasy sports in because it drives their revenues.

The fantasy sports exemption was carved out
at the request of Major League Baseball and fan organizations125
and it has the backing of the NFL, NHL, and NBA.126 The support
of these organizations is an indication that the fantasy games based
on their leagues are intended to fall within the exemption.

The DFS with the support of 4 multi billion leagues probably does have more backing than what PokerStars/FullTilt and the two big poker playing politicians that hated the Act had at the time.

I mean, the article is asking to split hairs over Fees/Prizes vs Wagers/Winnings over similar games of skill/chance when the ordinary population would simply recognize both achieving the same results and involving the same financial outlay. That is why the argument is silly, and why even the DFS crowd finds the try-hard defenders as silly cause in any thread I've seen. A wager has the same result on their wallet as a fee, and winings have the same result as prizes, and both are happening in a game of skill/chance. If it walks like a duck...

 

[MNNumbers]

No, you're off by a year. Atlanta only came into play, allegedly, after COG approved the funds at the last minute. Same month.

I forget, Fugu. Which 2 years did Glendale pledge 25M?

And, Thrashers moved to Winnipeg in 2011, right?

 

[Llama19]

I forget, Fugu. Which 2 years did Glendale pledge 25M?

And, Thrashers moved to Winnipeg in 2011, right?

NHL 'owned' the team in 2012 and 2013 seasons and Glendale gave them $25MM for each season, totaling $50MM...

 

[XX]

I might drown in the irony from this article, but my estimation of TNSE just went up another few ticks.

They want dat expansion monay. Not completely selfless.