4 ms·

I never quite understood the objections to this. As long as someone isn’t using credit cards, and there’s maybe some limits on how much they can bet per day, so

I never quite understood the objections to this. As long as someone isn’t using credit cards, and there’s maybe some limits on how much they can bet per day, so they don’t totally sell the house, I don’t quite understand the objections or restrictions on sports betting. I never quite understood the objections to this. As long as someone isn’t using credit cards, and there’s maybe some limits on how much they can bet per day, so they don’t totally sell the house, I don’t quite understand the objections or restrictions on sports betting. Potential revenue for states, not to mention for some of the gamblers, I think far outweighs the risks of abuse.

dpark 8y ago
The “sell the house” scenario is already possible with any other gambling. No reason sports gambling should be different from that perspective.
larrik 8y ago
The laws aren't for protecting the gamblers, they are for protecting the sport. The concern being that if gambling on sports is a real industry, then the outcomes of the games may get artificially "adjusted" by nefarious parties.
- andr3w321 8y ago
  Billions are already wagered offshore on all major sports. Making it illegal just makes it more difficult to protect the integrity of the game.
  - larrik 8y ago
    I'm not saying you're wrong, but that's not the kind of thinking the US government has historically used.