3 ms·

Link is working for me, at least. Perhaps Nevada's will work better? https://ag.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/agnvgov/Content/News/PR/PR_Docs/2026/Prediction%20Markets%2

Link is working for me, at least. Perhaps Nevada's will work better? https://ag.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/agnvgov/Content/News/PR/PR_Docs/2026/Prediction%20Markets%20Comment%20Letter%207.27.26.pdf https://ag.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/agnvgov/Content/News/PR/PR_D... What's bad about sports gambling is that it doesn't follow the model you're describing. The AGs point towards a study (https://perma.cc/4SF5-VGZH https://perma.cc/4SF5-VGZH) which finds that legalizing sports betting does not just reallocate money that was going to go to gambling anyway. Instead it crowds out savings. There are people who will explicitly tell pollsters and journalists (see e.g. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-08-12/gen-z-investors-turn-to-sports-betting-to-build-wealth https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-08-12/gen-z-inv... from yesterday) that they engage in sports betting because they see it as a fun alternative to traditional investments.

brainwad 2mo ago
The NV link doesn't work either. I suspect geoblocking. That study is measuring the effect of the introduction of _any_ modern online betting to these jurisdictions; before it was legalised there was no equivalent other than going to a casino or racetrack. But that genie can't be put back in the bottle just by restricting sports betting to sports books, as NY is asking for, now that all sorts of other prop bets are available as substitutes (and also sports betting on state-licensed sites). IMO regulators should focus on forcing the market makers to offer tighter spreads so prediction markets (and options etc.) are less negative-expectation for retail punters.