Fan Duel Draft Kings shut down in NY

[NFLfan]

1 minute ago, jvan1973 said:

I think it's a pretty easy leap to make.   Casinos,   horse racing,  lottery,  all fine.   Daily fantasy,   illegal

I don't study laws; so, I don't know. But I won't assume that there are ulterior motives.

A better question that folks like yourself could have asked is why was it not considered illegal gambling in the past. The AG proposed to shut them down only after the scandal ensued when a Draft Kings employee won $350K playing on Fan Duel, possibly because he had insider information. It is only after this incident that employees of those companies were banned from playing daily fantasy. 

[southwest1]

4 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

I don't study laws; so, I don't know. But I won't assume that there are ulterior motives.

A better question that folks like yourself could have asked is why was it not considered illegal gambling in the past. The AG proposed to shut them down only after the scandal ensued when a Draft Kings employee won $350K playing on Fan Duel, possibly because he had insider information. It is only after this incident that employees of those companies were banned from playing daily fantasy. 

Beautifully written post NFLfan. Your central thesis being let's not jump to conclusions based on evidence we don't have. In addition, as your AG example indicates, all the state attorney general was doing was investigating suspicious activity & putting a stop to unlawful manipulation before it contaminated the whole gambling industry under 1 uniform umbrella of shady activity. 

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, jvan1973 said:

If you don't want to participate,   don't.   But let people live their lives and spend their money the way they want

No problem.  My beef isn't with the people who want to spend their money.  Spend it how they want, I don't care.

I always like a good wager, or poker game, or game of craps once in a while.

My beef is with the creepy business owner who wants to get rich off of others weaknesses.  They weaker the person, the richer they get.  I'm sure the marketing departments targets the weakness in some way.  Not a whole lot different than a pusher.

I would never advocate a law change, but it wouldn't bother me if it all went away.

However, like any other business, if its legal, it needs to contribute to the tax pool in some way.  Its just the way life is.

[jvan1973]

8 minutes ago, DougDew said:

No problem.  My beef isn't with the people who want to spend their money.  Spend it how they want, I don't care.

I always like a good wager, or poker game, or game of craps once in a while.

My beef is with the creepy business owner who wants to get rich off of others weaknesses.  They weaker the person, the richer they get.  I'm sure the marketing departments targets the weakness in some way.  Not a whole lot different than a pusher.

I would never advocate a law change, but it wouldn't bother me if it all went away.

However, like any other business, if its legal, it needs to contribute to the tax pool in some way.  Its just the way life is.

Of course they pay taxes.   If they didn't they wouldn't have lasted this long. 

 

And most businesses take as much advantage of their customers as they can. 

[DougDew]

12 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Of course they pay taxes.   If they didn't they wouldn't have lasted this long. 

 

And most businesses take as much advantage of their customers as they can. 

Hey no problem.

 Glad to hear that I won't have to pay more taxes to make up for them finding a way to not pay any. 

I'd like to think that businesses are forced to transact business in an open way with their customers so that the profits made reflect the value of the good or service provided to the customer....instead of the business taking advantage of their customer as much as they can...but maybe that's just semantics.

[dw49]

56 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

I don't study laws; so, I don't know. But I won't assume that there are ulterior motives.

A better question that folks like yourself could have asked is why was it not considered illegal gambling in the past. The AG proposed to shut them down only after the scandal ensued when a Draft Kings employee won $350K playing on Fan Duel, possibly because he had insider information. It is only after this incident that employees of those companies were banned from playing daily fantasy. 

 

They did have existing rules that certain employees could not play. It just included employees further up in the food chain. The bottom line is that Fan Draft was infringing on other gambling businesses in the state that were greasing palms and had some lobbyist powers . Race tracks , indian casinos and their own state lottery. There is only so much money that is available to suck out of those that like to gamble. For the AG to say that this was a "game of chance" and not skill is an absolute joke. There are professional gamblers that are cashing in 6 figures a month on these fantasy games. 

[DougDew]

3 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

They did have existing rules that certain employees could not play. It just included employees further up in the food chain. The bottom line is that Fan Draft was infringing on other gambling businesses in the state that were greasing palms and had some lobbyist powers . Race tracks , indian casinos and their own state lottery. There is only so much money that is available to suck out of those that like to gamble. For the AG to say that this was a "game of chance" and not skill is an absolute joke. There are professional gamblers that are cashing in 6 figures a month on these fantasy games. 

What is the difference?  Its just a means by which to transfer money from the losers to the winners without any real service provided by the winner to the loser.  Why does it matter if it was transferred by chance or skill? 

I'm just asking what the distinction within the law is because it doesn't make sense to me.  Its either chance gambling or the development of a skill that simply takes money from another without providing anything in return. 

I guess it must be fun to lose but still hold out hope that you might win next time without skill?  That hopefully you'll improve your skill to a point to where you can take money from someone else with lesser skill without providing them anything in return?  Said that way, I'm not sure why it would be legal if it WAS a game of skill. 

Laws are weird aren't they....

[dw49]

3 hours ago, southwest1 said:

I see no problem with forbidding employees that work for the same company no betting privileges actually because the employees might be privy to insider information namely how either Fan Duel or NFL Draft kings crunches or compiles their statistical numbers.

You honestly don't see the conflict of interest here which could place an employee at a decided advantage when placing an online bet that a customer who doesn't work for either site would never have? Come on Jvan. You're a smart man. You know this. Companies restrict their employees all the time when they deal with highly sensitive financial matters. You can't expect either site to monitor themselves fairly can you? You need the federal government to perform independent fiscal audits annually to remove the threat of corruption, bribery, & deter the possibility of hiding lucrative transactions off shore outside US jurisdiction laws both domestically & internationally. 

How do we know what laws may or may not be followed without independent oversight being conducted first? I don't trust gambling sites to behave themselves personally. 

What you initially termed "government interference" I call establishing common sense regulations that protect the average consumer from fraud, deception, & being taken to the cleaners with no independent watch dog agency designed to ensure that both Fan Duel & Draft Kings is above board with no ties to say organized crime. JMO. 

In addition, I would presume that 1 employee used their company's computer data to place bets on their competitor's site so can't we safely assume that employees have already proven that they will use information incorrectly to line their own pockets for personal financial gain already? 

 

 

The advantage that that employee may have had is nothing compared to the millions the Clintons and others like Nancy Pelosi made from insider trading is maybe like a 2% edge compared to absolute no doubt thievery. We don't even know if that employees actually had any useful information before he placed his bet. Truth is any gambling can be rigged .. so why not ban them all ? 

1) Online poker.. very easy and has already been done. You have the risk of an insider developing software for an outside partner to be able to see opponents hands.

2) Casinos. They can just simply rig their slots to pay off less. In some card games , black jack an example , they can make more profit by not shuffling cards enough. Plus they pump booze into patrons to extract money quicker and more efficiently.

3) Horse racing. Owners can give their horses a nice easy race while the poor public is betting their hard earned money on an entry that is not trying. I owned horses for 20 years and know that game pretty well. Plus the drivers every once in a while will conspire one on their own.

4) Lotteries. Biggest joke in the world. They return about 50 cents for every $ wagered. Fan drafts returns around 90 cents to the betters.

 

So why not ban it all ?

[NFLfan]

7 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

They did have existing rules that certain employees could not play. It just included employees further up in the food chain. The bottom line is that Fan Draft was infringing on other gambling businesses in the state that were greasing palms and had some lobbyist powers . Race tracks , indian casinos and their own state lottery. There is only so much money that is available to suck out of those that like to gamble. For the AG to say that this was a "game of chance" and not skill is an absolute joke. There are professional gamblers that are cashing in 6 figures a month on these fantasy games. 

There is certainly skill involved. But for the daily fantasy industry to claim that chance is not involved may be the bigger joke. Injuries, coaches' decisions, fumbles, bounces of the ball, etc. all contribute to chance. There is more chance than skill, IMO. However,  I would not outlaw it. 

What do you have to say about Nevada and Arizona not allowing daily fantasy? 

[dw49]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

What is the difference?  Its just a means by which to transfer money from the losers to the winners without any real service provided by the winner to the loser.  Why does it matter if it was transferred by chance or skill? 

I'm just asking what the distinction within the law is because it doesn't make sense to me.  Its either chance gambling or the development of a skill that simply takes money from another without providing anything in return. 

I guess it must be fun to lose but still hold out hope that you might win next time without skill?  That hopefully you'll improve your skill to a point to where you can take money from someone else with lesser skill without providing them anything in return?  Said that way, I'm not sure why it would be legal if it WAS a game of skill. 

Laws are weird aren't they....

 

I totally agree with you Doug. I don't understand why they make that the major issue in what's "legal" and what's not. My son is a professional poker player and what you say is correct. The bad players eventually just go broke and all the money goes to the skilled players. In fact many of his friends have left poker to concentrate just on these fantasy games. They are killing it . 100's of thousands is what the best of them are making. I think the bottom line is that there will always be someone to take the bad gambler's money. It might be the State , a casino , race track , sports book or just sitting across from the skilled players. 

So I think the real issue is can you protect these people from urinating their money off ? If not , is it right to say it's OK for a casino in Las Vegas to fleece them but not something like Fan Draft ? It's no doubt bad for the economy when Joe Sucker blows the money his wife needed for that new refrigerator .. I understand that. What I do have trouble with is crooked politicians protecting those that grease their palms or in the least contribute big money to their election for their lucrative jobs.

[DougDew]

2 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

I totally agree with you Doug. I don't understand why they make that the major issue in what's "legal" and what's not. My son is a professional poker player and what you say is correct. The bad players eventually just go broke and all the money goes to the skilled players. In fact many of his friends have left poker to concentrate just on these fantasy games. They are killing it . 100's of thousands is what the best of them are making. I think the bottom line is that there will always be someone to take the bad gambler's money. It might be the State , a casino , race track , sports book or just sitting across from the skilled players. 

So I think the real issue is can you protect these people from urinating their money off ? If not , is it right to say it's OK for a casino in Las Vegas to fleece them but not something like Fan Draft ? It's no doubt bad for the economy when Joe Sucker blows the money his wife needed for that new refrigerator .. I understand that. What I do have trouble with is crooked politicians protecting those that grease their palms or in the least contribute big money to their election for their lucrative jobs.

To me, it makes more sense to make games of chance legal and games of skill not...maybe I'm confused and that's what the law says.  In a game of chance, every player has equal chance.  I understand that the house takes a cut to pay its bills, profits,etc all in the name of entertainment and providing an equal chance for everyone to have some winnings.  But legalizing a game of skill is nothing more than providing a place for smart people to take money from stupid people with no service or goods changing hands.  What's the point of legalizing that activity?  It just seems backwards to me ...if I'm reading this thread correctly.

Rigging other means of gambling is more detectable to the average gambler than is understanding the software in a black box.  Loaded dice, marked cards, drugged horses or jockeys pulling up...but crooked online software is hard to detect and ripe for fraud, IMO.

[dw49]

32 minutes ago, DougDew said:

To me, it makes more sense to make games of chance legal and games of skill not...maybe I'm confused and that's what the law says.  In a game of chance, every player has equal chance.  I understand that the house takes a cut to pay its bills, profits,etc all in the name of entertainment and providing an equal chance for everyone to have some winnings.  But legalizing a game of skill is nothing more than providing a place for smart people to take money from stupid people with no service or goods changing hands.  What's the point of legalizing that activity?  It just seems backwards to me ...if I'm reading this thread correctly.

Rigging other means of gambling is more detectable to the average gambler than is understanding the software in a black box.  Loaded dice, marked cards, drugged horses or jockeys pulling up...but crooked online software is hard to detect and ripe for fraud, IMO.

 

 

I guess the problem is the sucker will always find a way to lose his money. Government I can try to protect them by making things illegal but there will always be poker games , other kinds of house games and bookies if they shut down the sports books. Is shutting down everything where people gamble accomplish anything ? I really don't know. What I have a problem with is Government picking and choosing when they probably don't understand even a morsel of what might really take place in the different "arenas ." 

As far as the rigging ,the "online establishment" would do absolutely everything in their power to prevent any cheating from happening. They don't need it and other than the legislators , it's the only threat to their business. A few years back , a site discovered 2-3 guys rigged software and ended up returning millions to players that they deemed to be playing on their site. I understand that on the Thursday night lineups , it might be possible for employees to catch a lineup that wasn't played much but I think the effects IF and I say IF this happened is probably pretty small. DF claims it's nonsense and they might be right or they might be wrong. My point is IMO they don't have enough proof to make a claim that employees are "fleecing" the players. I would guess that it's probably a non factor .

[DougDew]

17 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

 

I guess the problem is the sucker will always find a way to lose his money. Government I can try to protect them by making things illegal but there will always be poker games , other kinds of house games and bookies if they shut down the sports books. Is shutting down everything where people gamble accomplish anything ? I really don't know. What I have a problem with is Government picking and choosing when they probably don't understand even a morsel of what might really take place in the different "arenas ." 

As far as the rigging ,the "online establishment" would do absolutely everything in their power to prevent any cheating from happening. They don't need it and other than the legislators , it's the only threat to their business. A few years back , a site discovered 2-3 guys rigged software and ended up returning millions to players that they deemed to be playing on their site. I understand that on the Thursday night lineups , it might be possible for employees to catch a lineup that wasn't played much but I think the effects IF and I say IF this happened is probably pretty small. DF claims it's nonsense and they might be right or they might be wrong. My point is IMO they don't have enough proof to make a claim that employees are "fleecing" the players. I would guess that it's probably a non factor .

I'm not interested in government being the morality police, I'm just trying to find some consistency in the logic behind the laws.  As far as I'm concerned, people should be free to play dice on every street corner if the mood struck them.

Don't casinos prohibit people who develop a skill in counting cards from playing blackjack?  I know they want the odds in their favor, but keeping counters away tends to remove the skill from the game and reduces it to more of a game of chance, and its legal.  So is roulette, which I'm not sure what skill is involved there.

If games of skill were legal and games of chance not, then I would think the Casino could not legally prohibit a card counter from playing blackjack...... but that they couldn't offer a roulette table. 

Soto be consistent, Fan Duel should prohibit people who have a skill in picking winners from participating, if the argument is that fan duel is similar to a casino.  Fan Duel seems the opposite of a casino to me because it argues that it is a game of skill...so maybe it shouldn't be compared to a casino or allowed to exist..

[dw49]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I'm not interested in government being the morality police, I'm just trying to find some consistency in the logic behind the laws.  As far as I'm concerned, people should be free to play dice on every street corner if the mood struck them.

Don't casinos prohibit people who develop a skill in counting cards from playing blackjack?  I know they want the odds in their favor, but keeping counters away tends to remove the skill from the game and reduces it to more of a game of chance, and its legal.  So is roulette, which I'm not sure what skill is involved there.

If games of skill were legal and games of chance not, then I would think the Casino could not legally prohibit a card counter from playing blackjack...... but that they couldn't offer a roulette table. 

Soto be consistent, Fan Duel should prohibit people who have a skill in picking winners from participating, if the argument is that fan duel is similar to a casino.  Fan Duel seems the opposite of a casino to me because it argues that it is a game of skill...so maybe it shouldn't be compared to a casino or allowed to exist..

 

 

We both agree that the logic with the "skill issue" makes no sense. The rest we are just beating to death. But interesting you bring up the counting cards issue. About 30 years ago I traveled a whole lot from central NY to Atlantic City and counted  cards. Unlike Los Vegas , they couldn't throw you out for counting. So kind of backs up what your saying about banning counters. What they would do when the *s in the pit thought they had a counter was this. 

Say they were dealing from a 4 deck shoe. They normally would deal around 3 of the 4 decks and then shuffle up. If they thought someone was counting the would only deal a hand or two from the shoe and then shuffle again. The game quickly breaks up and that better counting would be tagged and this would be done at every table he played at.

 

[Coffeedrinker]

On 12/13/2015 at 6:10 PM, jvan1973 said:

I think it's a pretty easy leap to make.   Casinos,   horse racing,  lottery,  all fine.   Daily fantasy,   illegal

One, the idea that sports gambling is illegal in NYC is laughable.  It's just that the mob controls it in NYC and they don't control Fan Duel or NFL Draft Kings.

 

That is the only reason why New York is going after FanDuel and NFL DraftKings.  If they get them classified as a sports gambling business then they can make them apply for special permits ($$$), tax them differently ($$$) and assign and oversite department ($$$).  Not to mention the control that comes along with all of that.

[ColtsBlueFL]

21 hours ago, Coffeedrinker said:

 If they get them classified as a sports gambling business then they can make them apply for special permits ($$$), tax them differently ($$$) and assign and oversite department ($$$).  Not to mention the control that comes along with all of that.

 

Doesn't money and power rule in every sector of our capitalistic society?

[Coffeedrinker]

14 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Doesn't money and power rule in every sector of our capitalistic society?

One, that idea that we live in a capitalistic society anymore is laughable and this case proves that.

 

Two, in a true capitalistic society everything is controlled by supply and demand.  If people don't like what a business is selling they don't buy and the business goes under.  It's not the government saying that the government doesn't like it and so we are going to shut you down (unless of course you pay these extra fees and taxes that we then redistribute to people who don't contribute to the economy).

[Coffeedrinker]

On 12/13/2015 at 7:02 PM, DougDew said:

No problem.  My beef isn't with the people who want to spend their money.  Spend it how they want, I don't care.

I always like a good wager, or poker game, or game of craps once in a while.

My beef is with the creepy business owner who wants to get rich off of others weaknesses.  They weaker the person, the richer they get.  I'm sure the marketing departments targets the weakness in some way.  Not a whole lot different than a pusher.

I would never advocate a law change, but it wouldn't bother me if it all went away.

However, like any other business, if its legal, it needs to contribute to the tax pool in some way.  Its just the way life is.

I just saw this post, so sorry for drudging it up again after you've probably forgotten about it. 

 

your point about gettng rich off people's weaknesses doesn't make a lot of sense because if that is the criteria then most business would need to be closed:

 

Doesn't coke make money from people's weakness of sugary, carbonated beverages?

Doesn't Pepsi make money from people's weakness of the above mentioned beverages plus fattening chips, poor pizza and bottle water?

Does McDonald's make money from people weakness of not preparing their own meals and needing something fast?

Cigerette companies?

Beer companies?

Liquor companies?

Heck, I'm in the oil and gas industry, don't we make money from people's weakness of wanting consistent, clean energy for their homes, cars and place of employment?

[dw49]

On December 15, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Coffeedrinker said:

I just saw this post, so sorry for drudging it up again after you've probably forgotten about it. 

 

your point about gettng rich off people's weaknesses doesn't make a lot of sense because if that is the criteria then most business would need to be closed:

 

Doesn't coke make money from people's weakness of sugary, carbonated beverages?

Doesn't Pepsi make money from people's weakness of the above mentioned beverages plus fattening chips, poor pizza and bottle water?

Does McDonald's make money from people weakness of not preparing their own meals and needing something fast?

Cigerette companies?

Beer companies?

Liquor companies?

Heck, I'm in the oil and gas industry, don't we make money from people's weakness of wanting consistent, clean energy for their homes, cars and place of employment?

 

 

I'll try not to get too political and I'll just say that this might be the last chance to save this country from being taken over by crooked politicians that are controlled by powerful interest groups. I've read your post and anyone with common sense would never dispute any of it. 

 

I just want to add that this has a little to do with the NYS legislation......

 

http://www.oneidadispatch.com/general-news/20151219/casinos-in-sullivan-county-schenectady-finger-lakes-to-be-licensed-next-week

[bap1331]

I agree it is gambling and could mess with the outcome of many real sports. There were NBA owners I believe that owned a piece of one of those companies.

They could easily pay the refs to change the outcome of a game and make more money.