Re: FSTA lobbyist
Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2015 6:14 am
Very easy to show that playing one season long contest allows owners to utilize much more skill than playing one DFS contest
https://nfbcforums.sportshubtech.com/
https://nfbcforums.sportshubtech.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=17577
Gekko wrote:From testimony today in NJ: FSTA lobbyist Jeremy Kudon: "Skill comes more into play in DFS than season-long"
https://mobile.twitter.com/LSPReport/st ... 6605062144
Greg: do u know this guy? Me thinks he has it ass backwards; however he's an FSTA lobbyist so does that mean the FSTA is throwing "season long" under the bus
As fantasy players, we all have differing opinions as to the luck vs. skill of any fantasy game.low talkers wrote:Once you start drawing lines on what level of skill is necessary before you are allowed to wager on that game, it is a very difficult line to draw. Should Draft Champion Leagues be legal? What about the playoffs league? Cutline?
This is where it gets difficult and murky to me. It is one thing for us to be able to explain to someone who plays fantasy sports how there are differing levels of skill between ‘1 one-day game vs a season long game’, and then ‘a series of daily games vs a season long game’, and then ‘a seasons worth of thousands of daily games vs a season long game’. But, every single type of DFS or season long has some element of skill and some element of chance. So, the question then becomes, can you wager money on a game that contains some level of skill and some element of chance? There is no exact way to quantify how much more skill a season long NFBC league takes than one single $1 DFS game on some random Tuesday night. Even though all of us here would say a season long league takes more skill than one single daily game, how much more? It’s an undefineable matter of opinion.
This does not mean that I don't see a distinction between DFS and season long, of course I do, it's just a more difficult thing to quantify than we might want to admit.
i don't play in the playoff league so im not positive of the structure of it, but 100% someone playing in a DC league or a cutline leagues affords their owners more opportunities to have their level of skill to determine the winner than someone playing a DFS contest.low talkers wrote:Once you start drawing lines on what level of skill is necessary before you are allowed to wager on that game, it is a very difficult line to draw. Should Draft Champion Leagues be legal? What about the playoffs league? Cutline?
Gekko wrote:the stocks analogy isnt a good one.
when you place a bet on a team to win, place a bet on a horse to win, or enter your DFS lineup, you sit back with no further decisions to make and you need to wait until the contest period is over to find out if you won or not.
with investing, the skill of the investor affords him the opportunity to decide for himself when the contest ends.
completely different
when someone can alter the ending of the contest to their benefit, it is a completely different "game". imagine if someone who placed a bet on a horse to win. the horse ran to the lead at the quarter pole and the bettor says, "okay, race is over. i win". completely different.DOUGHBOYS wrote:Gekko wrote:the stocks analogy isnt a good one.
when you place a bet on a team to win, place a bet on a horse to win, or enter your DFS lineup, you sit back with no further decisions to make and you need to wait until the contest period is over to find out if you won or not.
with investing, the skill of the investor affords him the opportunity to decide for himself when the contest ends.
completely different
You are only stating the timing element. True, like baseball, stocks do not have a clock.
Everything else applies.
We do have those. The fellows who give up after a quarter of our season. These fellows effect the results of remaining players.Gekko wrote:when someone can alter the ending of the contest to their benefit, it is a completely different "game". imagine if someone who placed a bet on a horse to win. the horse ran to the lead at the quarter pole and the bettor says, "okay, race is over. i win". completely different.DOUGHBOYS wrote:Gekko wrote:the stocks analogy isnt a good one.
when you place a bet on a team to win, place a bet on a horse to win, or enter your DFS lineup, you sit back with no further decisions to make and you need to wait until the contest period is over to find out if you won or not.
with investing, the skill of the investor affords him the opportunity to decide for himself when the contest ends.
completely different
You are only stating the timing element. True, like baseball, stocks do not have a clock.
Everything else applies.
Those stocks are bought in every draft, Mark.Gekko wrote:in addition, when you "buy" a stock, someone is "selling" it to you.
you are happy to buy it at a certain price and someone is happy to sell it to you at a certain price. it's called a win-win. no one loses when the transaction is made
sorry Dan, but the stock analogy doesn't work for me
spot onIchiban wrote:Congress does not really care about the distinction between skill and luck and gambling. They only care about protecting certain interests. I mean you can say we should ban games of short duration, but then why does NY have zero interest in banning horse racing? It all comes down to political will. There are some people who benefit by poker being illegal, both politically and profitably. And I'm sure when DFS was so in everybody's face with their ads, Vegas interests took note and saw the games as a threat to gambling dollars just like poker and sports betting are, and season-long fantasy sports aren't. And then when FanDuel and DK handled things so stupidly, it made it easy to get people to not understand them and move to ban them. So obviously daily games are gambling, but so is horse racing, so is day trading, so is this game. It's not the distinctions that really matter- it's political interests and perception. So clearly it is in the best interest of season long games to distinguish themselves from DFS, which is quite easy, since they really are very different games. And it's going to be in the best interests of DFS companies to say they are in the same industry, since a lot of people like their daily yahoo leagues. So in short, I think everyone here realizes the games are different, but both take both skill and luck to do well in long time, and you can argue all day about how much of each is needed. In the end, that's not why these games will be legal or illegal, because if that were the case horse racing would have been banned long ago, as opposed to anyone in America over 18 being able to open a legal and regulated online horse racing betting account.
First, yes, of course you pay for your fire department & interstate system. LMAO! Really? Second, if a politician thought he would win an election because the people would elect him based on a stance that 8 year olds could purchase guns, then he/she would. Really? I mean, this is basic, obvious, & elementary stuff. I can't fathom that we're even having that discussion. LMAO!EWeaver wrote:spot onIchiban wrote:Congress does not really care about the distinction between skill and luck and gambling. They only care about protecting certain interests. I mean you can say we should ban games of short duration, but then why does NY have zero interest in banning horse racing? It all comes down to political will. There are some people who benefit by poker being illegal, both politically and profitably. And I'm sure when DFS was so in everybody's face with their ads, Vegas interests took note and saw the games as a threat to gambling dollars just like poker and sports betting are, and season-long fantasy sports aren't. And then when FanDuel and DK handled things so stupidly, it made it easy to get people to not understand them and move to ban them. So obviously daily games are gambling, but so is horse racing, so is day trading, so is this game. It's not the distinctions that really matter- it's political interests and perception. So clearly it is in the best interest of season long games to distinguish themselves from DFS, which is quite easy, since they really are very different games. And it's going to be in the best interests of DFS companies to say they are in the same industry, since a lot of people like their daily yahoo leagues. So in short, I think everyone here realizes the games are different, but both take both skill and luck to do well in long time, and you can argue all day about how much of each is needed. In the end, that's not why these games will be legal or illegal, because if that were the case horse racing would have been banned long ago, as opposed to anyone in America over 18 being able to open a legal and regulated online horse racing betting account.
Anybody know the genesis of the skill vs. luck distinction as applied to U.S. gaming law? I don't (if you do, fill me in). I assume the policy behind it is that a player could, in theory, control ruining their life in a game of skill, but would have no control over ruining their life (and society around them) in a game of chance, hence the distinction. It's bullshit (to a degree), but here ya'll are, debating luck vs skill as though there is merit to the distinction as applied in this context. Sound like the politicians!
DFS is fucked as we know it, season long will be fine.
Also, regulation and taxation are not all bad, and "freedom" is not, nor has it ever remotely been, absolute in the United States. I enjoy the fact that I don't personally have to pay in full for my own fire department, interstate system, air traffic controllers, and, being veterans day, military - so in that sense, I support some taxation for the greater good and for my own personal good. I'm also glad I can't be legally murdered and that eight year olds can't buy machine guns. Or is that all another #moneygrab?
None of which is an endorsement of politicians on an individual level.
I forgot the funniest thing. DFS IS TAXED ALREADY! 1099's are submitted, at least by FanDuel. Also, they're incorporated in a state, believe it's MASS, if I remember correctly. So, they pay corporate taxes. LMAO! I love this forum. It's free, laughable, entertainment.EWeaver wrote:spot onIchiban wrote:Congress does not really care about the distinction between skill and luck and gambling. They only care about protecting certain interests. I mean you can say we should ban games of short duration, but then why does NY have zero interest in banning horse racing? It all comes down to political will. There are some people who benefit by poker being illegal, both politically and profitably. And I'm sure when DFS was so in everybody's face with their ads, Vegas interests took note and saw the games as a threat to gambling dollars just like poker and sports betting are, and season-long fantasy sports aren't. And then when FanDuel and DK handled things so stupidly, it made it easy to get people to not understand them and move to ban them. So obviously daily games are gambling, but so is horse racing, so is day trading, so is this game. It's not the distinctions that really matter- it's political interests and perception. So clearly it is in the best interest of season long games to distinguish themselves from DFS, which is quite easy, since they really are very different games. And it's going to be in the best interests of DFS companies to say they are in the same industry, since a lot of people like their daily yahoo leagues. So in short, I think everyone here realizes the games are different, but both take both skill and luck to do well in long time, and you can argue all day about how much of each is needed. In the end, that's not why these games will be legal or illegal, because if that were the case horse racing would have been banned long ago, as opposed to anyone in America over 18 being able to open a legal and regulated online horse racing betting account.
Anybody know the genesis of the skill vs. luck distinction as applied to U.S. gaming law? I don't (if you do, fill me in). I assume the policy behind it is that a player could, in theory, control ruining their life in a game of skill, but would have no control over ruining their life (and society around them) in a game of chance, hence the distinction. It's bullshit (to a degree), but here ya'll are, debating luck vs skill as though there is merit to the distinction as applied in this context. Sound like the politicians!
DFS is fucked as we know it, season long will be fine.
Also, regulation and taxation are not all bad, and "freedom" is not, nor has it ever remotely been, absolute in the United States. I enjoy the fact that I don't personally have to pay in full for my own fire department, interstate system, air traffic controllers, and, being veterans day, military - so in that sense, I support some taxation for the greater good and for my own personal good. I'm also glad I can't be legally murdered and that eight year olds can't buy machine guns. Or is that all another #moneygrab?
None of which is an endorsement of politicians on an individual level.
i literally don't know if you're agreeing with me or arguing against arguments you're perceiving me to be advancing, or if it's all just a joke?rickerbockerNFBC wrote:I forgot the funniest thing. DFS IS TAXED ALREADY! 1099's are submitted, at least by FanDuel. Also, they're incorporated in a state, believe it's MASS, if I remember correctly. So, they pay corporate taxes. LMAO! I love this forum. It's free, laughable, entertainment.EWeaver wrote:spot onIchiban wrote:Congress does not really care about the distinction between skill and luck and gambling. They only care about protecting certain interests. I mean you can say we should ban games of short duration, but then why does NY have zero interest in banning horse racing? It all comes down to political will. There are some people who benefit by poker being illegal, both politically and profitably. And I'm sure when DFS was so in everybody's face with their ads, Vegas interests took note and saw the games as a threat to gambling dollars just like poker and sports betting are, and season-long fantasy sports aren't. And then when FanDuel and DK handled things so stupidly, it made it easy to get people to not understand them and move to ban them. So obviously daily games are gambling, but so is horse racing, so is day trading, so is this game. It's not the distinctions that really matter- it's political interests and perception. So clearly it is in the best interest of season long games to distinguish themselves from DFS, which is quite easy, since they really are very different games. And it's going to be in the best interests of DFS companies to say they are in the same industry, since a lot of people like their daily yahoo leagues. So in short, I think everyone here realizes the games are different, but both take both skill and luck to do well in long time, and you can argue all day about how much of each is needed. In the end, that's not why these games will be legal or illegal, because if that were the case horse racing would have been banned long ago, as opposed to anyone in America over 18 being able to open a legal and regulated online horse racing betting account.
Anybody know the genesis of the skill vs. luck distinction as applied to U.S. gaming law? I don't (if you do, fill me in). I assume the policy behind it is that a player could, in theory, control ruining their life in a game of skill, but would have no control over ruining their life (and society around them) in a game of chance, hence the distinction. It's bullshit (to a degree), but here ya'll are, debating luck vs skill as though there is merit to the distinction as applied in this context. Sound like the politicians!
DFS is fucked as we know it, season long will be fine.
Also, regulation and taxation are not all bad, and "freedom" is not, nor has it ever remotely been, absolute in the United States. I enjoy the fact that I don't personally have to pay in full for my own fire department, interstate system, air traffic controllers, and, being veterans day, military - so in that sense, I support some taxation for the greater good and for my own personal good. I'm also glad I can't be legally murdered and that eight year olds can't buy machine guns. Or is that all another #moneygrab?
None of which is an endorsement of politicians on an individual level.