Gambling coming to OPACY?

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Sure. Just like relatively few people who pick up a beer are alcoholics, and many people who smoke don't get lung cancer.  Most people will not bankrupt their family at the Orioles sportsbook.  Some will. 

But then the Orioles and MLB start counting on this revenue stream. The bookkeepers and the marketers immediately start thinking of ways to increase gambling revenues, take more risks.  As cable money declines, attendance stagnates or declines across the league, and streaming doesn't make up for it, gambling may well slide in and fill that gap.  What happens in 2030 or 2040 if gambling money is  30%, 40% or more of revenues? Every day people are putting big money on the Orioles to lose.  People are putting not-insignificant money on the closer to blow today's save?  With all this being not only legal, but out in the open and the teams are heavily incentivized to keep the revenues flowing someone is going to look the other way when some poor schlub puts his entire $2M retirement savings on some rookie making MLB minimum striking out to lead off the game and... whatta you know, he does strike out.

There's a reason that the early professional leagues very publicly distanced themselves from gambling, and MLB has done that for nearly 150 years.  Backtracking on this will probably be fine for most people most of the time.  Until it isn't.

It’s not MLBs fault if people are morons and do dumb stuff.  They have a business to run and you are always looking for more ways to make money, keep the product fresh and keep fans interested.

Whether you like it or not, people like to bet and gamble.  It’s fun and exciting.  

[DrungoHazewood]

48 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Do you sit on a rocking chair on your front porch yelling at kids to “get off your lawn”?

As I read your comments on this thread, that’s how I’m picturing you.    

You know I'm as un-grumpy old man as it gets on most stuff.  I'm all for automated ball/strikes, and I have a list of changes to the game I'd entertain that would make a traditionalist go pale and start twitching. I'd move the mound back 3-6' tomorrow if I could.  I want to ban all mound visits, and enforce a strict 15 second pitch clock even during pitching changes.  I think all unsuccessful pickoff throws should count as balls on the batter.

But I'm not going to back off on the potential problems resulting from a professional sports league getting into bed with sports gambling establishments.

Edited August 18, 2022 by DrungoHazewood

[eddie83]

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

You know I'm as un-grumpy old man as it gets on most stuff.  I'm all for automated ball/strikes, and I have a list of changes to the game I'd entertain that would make a traditionalist go pale and start twitching. I'd move the mound back 3-6' tomorrow if I could.

But I'm not going to back off on the potential problems resulting from a professional sports league getting into bed with sports gambling establishments.

I’m not bothered you are anti-gambling but you have yet to explain what problems are going to occur from this? 

[Ohfan67]

10 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

I’m not bothered you are anti-gambling but you have yet to explain what problems are going to occur from this? 

Say it ain't so, Eddie83!

[DrungoHazewood]

33 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

It’s not MLBs fault if people are morons and do dumb stuff.  They have a business to run and you are always looking for more ways to make money, keep the product fresh and keep fans interested.

Whether you like it or not, people like to bet and gamble.  It’s fun and exciting.  

I get the whole personal responsibility aspect, but I think you too quickly dismiss the societal problems that come from businesses like the Orioles and government pushing risky behaviors by people with little or no self-control so they can make a buck.  You say it's not MLB's fault if morons do dumb stuff, knowing full well that there are plenty of morons perfectly willing to do dumb stuff if the Orioles give them the opportunity.

[DrungoHazewood]

15 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

I’m not bothered you are anti-gambling but you have yet to explain what problems are going to occur from this? 

See my post about six or eight up.  Societal problems from gamblers with no self control being enabled to lose their shirt by MLB.  And the ever-increasing reliance on revenue streams based on betting on game outcomes that could influence on-field behaviors outside of wins and losses and pennant races. In other words, if lots of money is put on today's game there's a chance that it's worth it to the gamblers to find the participant (player, ump, manager) who is most vulnerable to exploitation and exploit him.

MLB's position used to be that's a very bad thing risk and we're not doing it. We remember 1919. Now it's more like "eh, what could happen?  We're all getting rich here."

[Sports Guy]

16 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I get the whole personal responsibility aspect, but I think you too quickly dismiss the societal problems that come from businesses like the Orioles and government pushing risky behaviors by people with little or no self-control so they can make a buck.  You say it's not MLB's fault if morons do dumb stuff, knowing full well that there are plenty of morons perfectly willing to do dumb stuff if the Orioles give them the opportunity.

People can and will bet regardless.  There is a casino that is a stones throw from OPACY.  You can gamble away your life from your phone.  Adding something like this to OPACY isn’t going to bring down society as we know it.

You can be anti gambling and that’s fine..there are reasons for that.  But to act as if this is going to do something that you can’t already do is going way too far.

[RVAOsFan]

14 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

Rose wasn’t banned cause of gambling. Dowd held a secret meeting with him outside of Chicago, offered him a deal that, IIRC, if he confessed right then and there it’d never go public.  No suspension, nothing. Look it up, it happened. 
 

Rose was banned because he was running his bets through mafia controlled bookies who also had ties to cocaine. Coming off the Pittsburgh Drug Trials, Gooden, etc, they couldn’t run the risk of the public finding out that Pete Rose had coke ties. 
 

Rose, being Rose, of course denied it all and his lawyers escalated everything and then it went public. 
 

You can believe what you want and I know you’ll believe that Rose was banned for gambling. The truth is that MLB wanted it swept under the rug, never to see the light of day. 

This is interesting stuff I honestly had never heard before.  I would watch the Netflix documentary for sure.

[Frobby]

34 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

I’m not bothered you are anti-gambling but you have yet to explain what problems are going to occur from this? 

How much more does he have to spell it out?   The more ubiquitous gambling on baseball becomes, the bigger the chances that some players or front office types or umpires get caught up in it somehow and we have a really damaging scandal on our hands.  That’s his point.   And, you’ll have some gamblers get addicted to betting on every little thing that occurs in a baseball game and going bankrupt in the process.  

[Frobby]

9 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

People can and will bet regardless.  There is a casino that is a stones throw from OPACY.  You can gamble away your life from your phone.  Adding something like this to OPACY isn’t going to bring down society as we know it.

You can be anti gambling and that’s fine..there are reasons for that.  But to act as if this is going to do something that you can’t already do is going way too far.

I think Drungo, if he could, would dial back the extent to which it’s allowed already.  

[eddie83]

18 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

See my post about six or eight up.  Societal problems from gamblers with no self control being enabled to lose their shirt by MLB.  And the ever-increasing reliance on revenue streams based on betting on game outcomes that could influence on-field behaviors outside of wins and losses and pennant races. In other words, if lots of money is put on today's game there's a chance that it's worth it to the gamblers to find the participant (player, ump, manager) who is most vulnerable to exploitation and exploit him.

MLB's position used to be that's a very bad thing risk and we're not doing it. We remember 1919. Now it's more like "eh, what could happen?  We're all getting rich here."

What makes you think that legalizing it would increase this? Gamblers have to bet somewhere. If a Tigers-Royals Tuesday game in September has a ton of action on it people will notice. 
 

States have online betting. The in game bets will occur using phones. MLB and the Orioles are getting their piece of the pie. Are sports leagues hypocrites? Of course they are. When society frowned upon gambling at least publicly they were against it. Now they love the revenue from it. 
 

I’m not being flip about addiction. I know someone who is a gambling addict. The person still has issues.I know someone who was addicted to pot. This person was two different people depending on whether or not he was stoned or not. It impacted his ability to function normally. 

[eddie83]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

How much more does he have to spell it out?   The more ubiquitous gambling on baseball becomes, the bigger the chances that some players or front office types or umpires get caught up in it somehow and we have a really damaging scandal on our hands.  That’s his point.   And, you’ll have some gamblers get addicted to betting on every little thing that occurs in a baseball game and going bankrupt in the process.  

They are going to do this in broad daylight with legalized sports books? 

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

I think Drungo, if he could, would dial back the extent to which it’s allowed already.  

Well that’s just not reality.  
 

If you want things dialed back, there are many bigger deal things in this country.

[DrinkinWithFermi]

Dystopian and degenerate, but that is basically the everyday baseline of society these days so I guess I'm just being a stick in the mud for not enthusiastically embracing the decline.

But hey, maybe ownership will use a tiny fraction of the money they make off of human misery from this abomimation for a middle reliever of a platoon COF 

[eddie83]

46 minutes ago, Ohfan67 said:

Say it ain't so, Eddie83!

Did the White Sox players walk into the SportsBook at Comiskey and bet on the Reds?