I wonder if having a sports betting equivalent to "accredited investor" would be a way to put a ceiling in for X losses over Y time for most users. Basically have some default self-exclusion rules put into place for any new sports betting account unless the user can demonstrate some minimum income/net-worth requirements to reduce the risk that anyone is gambling away their life savings.
Obviously I don't think any book would ever support such a thing because it would 1) directly impact their bottom line and 2) introduce a lot more friction into the experience for whales, but this might be a binding way for regulators to try and minimize the maximum amount of harm the average bettor could experience.
Also, side note, as someone who had been hammering HR prop promos, it is really funny that you chose to use that as an example. I think there were several books (Betr and ParlayPlay come to mind) over the regular baseball season that are now seriously regretting boosting payouts Ohtani HRs.
While in theory that might work, in practice there are lots of problems. In the UK, "affordability checks"––where books inquire about users' finances and ask for bank statements––have been weaponized to punish sharp bettors and it's unclear they've had much if any impact on decreasing problem gambling. And gonna be even tougher to implement in the US because people are very concerned about their privacy and don't want to hand over bank/tax docs to sportsbooks/casinos. See here for more details https://x.com/markhillsports/status/1841527129260892239?s=46. Re HR props, yea lol there are definitely some edges to be had but they're probably the most standard degen bet these days :)
I wonder if having a sports betting equivalent to "accredited investor" would be a way to put a ceiling in for X losses over Y time for most users. Basically have some default self-exclusion rules put into place for any new sports betting account unless the user can demonstrate some minimum income/net-worth requirements to reduce the risk that anyone is gambling away their life savings.
Obviously I don't think any book would ever support such a thing because it would 1) directly impact their bottom line and 2) introduce a lot more friction into the experience for whales, but this might be a binding way for regulators to try and minimize the maximum amount of harm the average bettor could experience.
Also, side note, as someone who had been hammering HR prop promos, it is really funny that you chose to use that as an example. I think there were several books (Betr and ParlayPlay come to mind) over the regular baseball season that are now seriously regretting boosting payouts Ohtani HRs.
While in theory that might work, in practice there are lots of problems. In the UK, "affordability checks"––where books inquire about users' finances and ask for bank statements––have been weaponized to punish sharp bettors and it's unclear they've had much if any impact on decreasing problem gambling. And gonna be even tougher to implement in the US because people are very concerned about their privacy and don't want to hand over bank/tax docs to sportsbooks/casinos. See here for more details https://x.com/markhillsports/status/1841527129260892239?s=46. Re HR props, yea lol there are definitely some edges to be had but they're probably the most standard degen bet these days :)
Wow that thread is outrageous. Lesson for me to not underestimate the ability of books to weaponize regulation - thanks for sharing.
This is super sad and concerning. :-/ Thank you for letting people know.
Great article Isaac!
Great column. Clearly shows how the incentive structure works to strengthen the addiction problem rather than alleviate it.