r/nba • u/Subject-Property-343 Raptors • 14h ago
[Charania] The NBA and prominent sportsbooks have agreed to ban multiple types of bets, per me and David Purdum
- Parl@y bets involving the under on the same player's statistics
- "First of" market; examples: winner of opening tip, an individual's specific shot, rebound, assist, steal
- "Under" bets on players expected to play less than 12 minutes a game
The NBA has held active communication with major gaming companies on tightening wagers in the aftermath of recent betting scandals.
The new list of prohibited bets join restrictions from prior seasons -- including bets on 10-day or two-way contract players, player props on turnovers, bets related to fouls, and bets related to missed free throws.
https://www.espn.com/contributor/shams-charania/27d0d76bf9c09
1.0k
u/killersky99 14h ago
The bare minimum the NBA has to do is ban players from taking gambling sponsorships. All it does is create scummy situation like Giannis sitting on the fence saying he wants to stay while his agents requests to leave and pretending it has nothing to do with him meanwhile his sponsor makes millions on people betting on his trade destination.
217
u/pixeloffortune 13h ago
The NFL example in which Schefter reported Marvin Harrison was about to be traded without announcing the team, while the prediction market he has an ownership stake is accepting prediction bids where he is going to end up, is going to eventually end in disaster for one of those leagues
68
→ More replies (1)19
132
u/justwriteforme Warriors 14h ago
But kalshi isn’t gambling! /s
149
u/SecondHandFood 76ers 13h ago
“You lost the house gambling dad?”
“No silly, I lost it on incorrectly predicting future market conditions. It’s completely different”
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)2
13
u/ILikeFPS Raptors 13h ago
Also prevent teams from taking gambling sponsorships and running gambling ads.
2
u/SteveJavieWasRight 8h ago
NBA can’t do that as long as they and owners are making money with gambling companies
→ More replies (3)3
68
u/tabanak 10h ago
Ban the advertising too. Should be treated like cigarettes
18
u/IDiedAHundredTimes- Knicks 8h ago
And alcohol while we're at it, get all this trash removed at once.
→ More replies (1)6
u/9406725060 7h ago
How you gonna get rid of the official partner of the NBA, Hennessy?
→ More replies (1)
2.4k
u/homefree122 Thunder 14h ago
I’ll give credit to the NBA here. It won’t fix all problems associated with gambling, but this is a good move
881
u/ColdCocking 14h ago
I hate gambling, but if they just limited it to 'who will win this game' then it puts it back into what seems more ethically reasonable.
423
u/t33lu 14h ago edited 11h ago
They should take it a step further and just remove under betting on players. Playing better than expected is always good for the sport. Playing worse is not.
Getting above average pts by chucking is still playing badly and will get you benched.
Edit: please stop telling me you need an under to cover the over. Betting platforms do not do this. They cover the risk to a certain degree but my $5 under bet is not covering someone else’s over $5
118
u/Otherwise_Taro_8539 14h ago
Agreed, people who still want to bet unders will just use Stake or some offshore book anyway
39
u/2131andBeyond Cavaliers 12h ago
I mean, sure? The argument that changing laws and regulations is useless bc people will just go do said thing in a black market isn’t based in any reality. We have plenty of evidence of things being banned/allowed wherein usage goes up/down because of it.
Sure, plenty of degenerates might go back to bookies more, but the majority of people wouldn’t even know where to find that lol
→ More replies (1)29
42
u/Zenyx_ 13h ago
Just remove betting on players, team bets only. Players are fickle and easily influenced, teams less so.
Award betting for players can stay but the other ones are trash.
→ More replies (2)5
u/indoninjah 76ers 11h ago
I think a lot of that is solved by the limitations on betting on bench players (the 12 minutes per game thing). I don't think real rotation guys are likely to get involved with betting on themselves
→ More replies (1)2
u/SpinShine-LEDSlipMat 11h ago
It honestly seems like the books are taking a bath on those types of bets and this is just good business practice rather than caring about the game
2
u/attorneyatslaw Knicks 6h ago
I think these sorts of bets make up a ridiculously tiny portion of NBA betting so they don’t care either way.
4
u/nowuff Timberwolves 13h ago
That’s a good idea - unders are certainly the most room for insider manipulation.
But they do serve as legitimate hedges: eg. “I believe the Timberwolves will win, so I will bet $100 moneyline. But if Ant scores less than 20 pts, they will probably lose. So I will bet a $10 under on his pt total to cover my risk.”
But I’m not sure ‘legitimate hedges’ to other sports bets are necessarily what the NBA and these Sportsbooks are looking to solve-for/preserve
3
u/Lusty-Jove Heat 12h ago
I agree, but Over betting doesn’t necessarily equal better play. Imagine a player like Marcus Smart playing to the over of their shot attempts, for instance
→ More replies (1)16
u/Celtic_Legend Celtics 13h ago
Well that's the same thing. Betting someone plays better means someone else has to accept your bet. The person accepting your bet thinks they will play their under.
18
u/t33lu 12h ago edited 12h ago
thats not how betting platforms work at all. That might be how polymarket works but sports betting platforms runs analytics on the player. You can bet over 5 10 15 20 etc each with their different odds. Theres no "person" at the other end because you're playing against the house. If the house thinks Ant will 100% go over 5pts they will set the odds incredibly low or remove it.
All the under does is allow people to bet the under on the avg and the house will try to offset the losses that way but if you're not allowed to have the under the odds will just be changed for the risk of the over
→ More replies (9)3
u/SteveJavieWasRight 8h ago
You cannot have functioning odds if there are overs with no unders. With no under the books cannot hedge at all meaning the only way to mitigate losses is extremely bad odds, extremely high overs, or both. Without the under there is no incentive to provide fair numbers.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)10
u/UltraTiberious China 12h ago
No, sportsbooks have ALWAYS been against the house. Only Polymarket and Kalshi has you betting against other bettors.
Please don’t talk out of your ass
4
u/SteveJavieWasRight 8h ago
The house is on the other side, technically, but they divide their liability using other bettors. You cannot have a functioning gambling position where the house has overs and no unders.
→ More replies (2)3
6
u/duntwurryitgetswurse 14h ago
Bookies want the unders to pay the overs and vice versa. Bookies are not in the business of risking their own money.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Odd-Yogurtcloset8089 12h ago
Not how bookies work. Even when both sides are offered, people overwhelmingly bet the over
2
u/elev57 Knicks 12h ago
remove under betting on players
Sports books would oppose getting rid of it in general. They'll use under bets to partially hedge the over bets they take. Getting rid of all under bets would make the spread on over bets higher (because of the lack of the two sided market), which would further reduce the flow (and profit) they see.
→ More replies (23)4
u/HUT2Moon 13h ago
Even over betting is a problem. The player knows his health, likely playing time, etc. Marginal starters can advocate for more time especially by citing health, feel, etc. It’s a bad idea.
→ More replies (1)107
u/justklaythings [GSW] Klay Thompson 14h ago
The only move the NBA should get credit for is cutting ties with gambling companies entirely. As long as live odds and props etc are shoved down your throat on the broadcast, they get no credit.
→ More replies (2)39
u/justmefishes NBA 13h ago
This is kind of like banning cigarette ads from showing people in sunglasses or sports cars to try to reduce the "cool" factor. No, just ban the entire thing outright. Poison is poison.
21
u/mitchippoo Warriors 13h ago
Banning gambling ads during nba games would go a hell of a long way, it’s basically jammed down your throat the whole time watching
10
u/Joeskis Mavericks 13h ago
Banning this crap won’t happen in the blink of an eye.
It takes progress and hopefully this is the start of it.
→ More replies (1)5
u/justmefishes NBA 13h ago
True. I think it's both: yes, a step in the right direction, but it's still just to judge them harshly given the easily predictable ethical disaster the whole thing has been. Aside from corrupting the sport, far more significantly they're actively and knowingly corrupting the lives of thousands if not millions of people because it's highly profitable for them to do so.
It's like, if you commit premeditated murder because you got paid a ton of money to do it, and then after a couple of years of lacking remorse you open up to saying "maybe not everything about my decision was good," that's a step in the right direction but I'm not ready to sing your praises just yet.
→ More replies (2)4
u/alexm42 Celtics 12h ago
It's better that it's legal and out of the hands of organized crime. But all gambling ads should be banned.
2
u/justmefishes NBA 11h ago
Agreed. To be clearer than the above, I don't think gambling per se should be illegal, but gambling ads should be, and more generally it should also be illegal for companies to enter into business relationships where gambling poses any conflict of interest (e.g. as with the NBA getting in bed with gambling).
→ More replies (1)44
u/dakadoo33 13h ago
Fuck no, you're wrong. these types of changes are just meant to help the sportsbooks raise their own perceived "integrity", and move closer towards social acceptance. we should perceive all these companies as sociopath type entities, which they are, any move to change that perception is a move in the wrong direction for the NBA.
→ More replies (1)6
u/ILikeAllThings [GSW] Klay Thompson 13h ago
I think these could be bets that the book breaks even on and would like to remove because it doesn't affect the bottom line positively. Almost every move a company makes is because of money, I do not buy the ethics angle one bit.
35
u/Affectionate-Cap4981 Warriors 14h ago edited 14h ago
These changes are certainly ones that sportsbooks don’t mind banning. Everyone spams overs, so lines get moved up impossibly high. So back when I was messing around with sports betting, spamming under on everything went great for me. I haven’t touched any sportsbooks for a while, but even several years ago I noticed that the sportsbooks were removing the under options for more and more bets.
5
u/WickedSensitiveCrew 13h ago
Yeah, thread sentiment seems to be focused on the morality of sports betting rather than what this actually means for the sportsbooks.
Banning under bets on players expected to play fewer than 12 minutes arguably benefits the sportsbooks by eliminating a market that can be more vulnerable to manipulation. For example one type of bet is over/under a bench player scores 10 points. Going under was easy money with so many players for people that bet.
23
u/themrwaynos 14h ago
it isn't going to fix anything. People will simply gravitate to the sportsbooks that will take their bets. This only affects "prominent" sportsbooks.
20
u/John71CLE Cavaliers 14h ago
This will push game fixing to small scale sports books owned by organized crime like the good old days in David Stern’s NBA
3
u/Everyday_ImSchefflen Cavaliers 14h ago
Okay? That would have been a problem pre current state as well
→ More replies (3)13
u/randotd152 14h ago
This is a tiny and almost completely meaningless step that still misses the entire point of why this is all bad by a country mile.
→ More replies (8)74
u/GGTae Spurs 14h ago
make people addicts because they hit on dark parlays > delete the dark parlays that weren't profitable for gambling companies > funnel to more profitable ones
idk if it's not worse that it was their thoughts ngl
133
u/JackDAction 14h ago
the point of these moves is to stop the players from gambling.... not the fans
→ More replies (1)33
42
u/FTownRoad Raptors 14h ago
They are stopping bets that were easily influenced by the players.
If I’m taking the opening tip, I bet on the other guy and lose. I don’t go for a rebound if the line is at 9 and I’m at 8. Etc.
8
u/Wyden_long Suns 14h ago
Some of the clips from Rozier I think, and then Classe in baseball it was obvious what was going on.
4
u/luchajefe Mavericks 13h ago
Clase's backers once lost one of those bets when World Series Hero Andy Pages swung at a ball that couldn't have been more than a foot off the ground.
14
u/theyoloGod Tampa Bay Raptors 14h ago
Man thinks companies don’t make money off dog shit low percentage parlays lol
13
u/Everyday_ImSchefflen Cavaliers 14h ago
Um parlays are extremely profitable for gambling companies. Wtf you talking about
→ More replies (1)25
u/deemerritt Hornets 14h ago
This is the single most cynical and brainrot read on this situation possible. They are banning these bets because they are a low volume of bets and extremely easy to manipulate.
7
u/TripleH18 14h ago
Parleys are suckers bets. Betters don’t win them often. Gambling companies makes TONS of money off of some schmos 4 way parley.
→ More replies (12)7
u/Bireus 14h ago
Thats what it reads to me but I don't know enough about gambling to make an informed opinion
15
u/TheFrozenBananaStand Pacers 14h ago
This is Reddit man, THE place for uninformed opinions
→ More replies (1)34
u/RulersBack Cavaliers 14h ago edited 14h ago
Yes and no. These are some of the easiest to manipulate as a player so theres plenty of self interest from all parties. You're right tho it is technically a positive move
44
u/brooklynsantiago 14h ago
How is that yes and no? That’s the whole point
→ More replies (6)7
u/TheBloodKlotz Trail Blazers 14h ago
Yeah, I think they mean to point out that the league is not doing it for us, but doing it to keep players from manipulating their own bets. That's true, but yes and yes as far as I'm concerned
→ More replies (2)5
u/lebryant_westcurry Knicks 14h ago
So what makes this a bad move if you're saying yes and no?
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)2
u/Dr_Acula_PhD Celtics 14h ago
If sports books are willing to move on these, then leagues need to ask for more restrictions. And then again.
11
u/CrossingYoulnStyle Knicks 14h ago
Yeah this a real step being taken by the league. There's a long way to go but it's a good sign
17
u/jowilkin Knicks 14h ago
All this does is makes it harder for players to bet on themselves.
Does absolutely nothing to improve the impact of gambling on the general population.
In fact the entire goal here is to protect the league's ability to keep these gambling partnerships. To keep as many people as possible gambling.
7
u/Tasty_Pea_6372 14h ago
I wonder which of those 2 problems do you think the NBA should care about? And has the power to do anything about?
7
u/CrossingYoulnStyle Knicks 14h ago
That's still a very good thing. Players throwing games to hit their unders is way worse for the league than anything we do as fans
→ More replies (1)3
u/BlunderDefect Spurs 14h ago
Most of those bets removed were weak exploitable markets lol. I made a killing on player shots and rebound + choosing unders on players that might be in limited minutes. If anything this just increases sportsbooks profits by eliminating weaker markets.
7
u/coolycooly Nets 12h ago edited 12h ago
As a gambler only one of these is anything, the Sportsbooks know it and that's probably why they offered to ban it under a guise of integrity and the NBA was just looking for a PR win while making 100s of millions from the same companies.
People have been winning big betting on all unders and then the player gets hurt so books don't like that bet and they killed the odds on that already. Plus it's so easy to see if someone was rigging games that way.
They hate offering bets on players under 12 minutes already because the players minutes can fluctuate so much especially if a blowout is expected. So it's hard to create fair lines.
The tip, rebound, and first shot type is a good change that not many people bet on but that actually does help competitive integrity and isn't just in the books best interest. But again is a very small market the books can't be losing much on taking it away.
→ More replies (4)18
u/Forestl NBA 14h ago
If you don't fix the actual underlying issue these minor fixes won't actually solve anything
12
u/YizWasHere Hornets 14h ago
Starting any amount of regulation is progress though, this has been treated as the Wild West to this point
→ More replies (1)21
u/deemerritt Hornets 14h ago
Why does everyone have this attitude about everything lol.
→ More replies (1)19
u/uncheel3 Hornets 14h ago
Because on the internet, people think being cynical makes them seem smart and informed. They worry that optimism comes off as naivete.
→ More replies (2)16
u/AeroBlaze777 Hawks 14h ago
True, but acting like this isn’t at least a step in the right direction is just misrepresenting the situation.
And what is the underlying issue in your eyes? Maybe it’s that the Supreme Court left gambling to the states. Maybe it’s the fact that so many people are turning to gambling because they are having financial trouble. What can the NBA do about that?
→ More replies (3)3
2
u/Dear-Credit-3812 12h ago
Brilliant take bro, so let's not do anything about anything ever again unless we can implement a 100% perfect solution.
Progress is progress
→ More replies (1)6
u/BigOlPass Lakers 14h ago
The NBA only has so much control here and I'd argue they don't have the ability to solve the actual issue
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (12)4
u/PaceAndSpaceNBAi3 14h ago
As the nba is in bed with gambling this measure simply took a**l off the table. Everything else is fair game.
3
180
u/FuckThaLakers Timberwolves 14h ago
- "Under" bets on players expected to play less than 12 minutes a game
I wonder how this works. Are they creating a master list before each season? Is someone flagging players likely to play less than 12min in advance of each game? Are teams reporting their intended rotations?
Seems like a pretty squishy rule.
88
u/John71CLE Cavaliers 14h ago
Sports books have always picked and chosen what they want to feature. If you look at college basketball they won’t even give you the option to bet on super lopsided games, like ranked teams vs low majors. They will pull anyone suspected of being close to that 12 minute mark whether they hit it or not
→ More replies (1)2
u/indoninjah 76ers 11h ago
Makes sense. It's not like it's a true law or anything, just an agreement. I agree that they'll probably err on the side of caution
24
u/deemerritt Hornets 14h ago
These gambling companies are basically tech companies and actuarial companies. They will have a rolling average that sets what bets are allowed on what players. The real issue to me is whether or not they count games played or not. Looking at ESPN im seeing guys like Tidjaun Salaun for the Hornets that i would have bet my life did not play 12 minutes a game last year that played 15 a game, and im wondering if DNP-CDs were even factored in.
5
u/Maleficent-Peace382 13h ago
All stats use games played as the denominator, not 82. That's why leaderboards have a qualification for minimum games played.
12
u/Mediocre_Arugula8815 14h ago
Ya it looks like the word “expected“ is doing allot of heavy lifting in that sentence
5
4
u/SeatownNets Nets 13h ago
They just don't list some players based on their estimate, it's not a rule the NBA is going to be vigilantly auditing or anything.
Draftkings isn't that worried to miss action on Jameison Battle because he happened to play 15 minutes.
3
u/Yeti_Colo 14h ago
Is someone (or some AI) flagging players... of course. Shit even in non real money wagering like fantasy these this are predicted for each game. Do you really not know how much analytics goes into each and every matchup?
→ More replies (3)2
u/zincinzincout 76ers 13h ago
At a minimum you could do it by rolling average
But you’re forgetting that sports betting works because they have unbelievable amounts of data and analytical models to predict these things. The sports books probably have far better predictive information than the coaching staffs.
Odds are set based on those models, it makes a ton of sense to institute bans on certain things using those models
137
u/Roger_Weebert 14h ago
The sportsbooks are happy to have any excuse to not offer unders. It lets them set the over lines at whatever exploitative price they want. Most already do all they can to discourage people from betting unders, and the limits are generally miniscule even when offered. This suits them just fine
59
u/putitonice [TOR] Tracy McGrady 14h ago
Important distinction here. This is a win win for the NBA and sportsbook alike. The league gets positive PR by generically appeasing the concerns, while the books get even more leverage over bettors in being able to limit under markets. This will not solve anything. For those who aren't familiar with sportsbetting, casual bettors love overs, which are highly
volatile and generally terrible wagers to place.→ More replies (2)12
u/CurrentCostanza Trail Blazers 12h ago
This will not solve anything
It will certainly solve the issue of players getting involved in their own prop bets.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (9)17
u/josh123asdf 14h ago
This is the only cogent response in the thread I’ve seen so far. The NBA is going to address the “insider trading risk” created by their own employees by letting the sportsbook hold more from regular bettors.
51
u/CHEVIEWER1 14h ago
Imagine betting big money on a player to get JUST one crappy assist and winds up WITH zero assists BUT does score 62 points CRAZY
→ More replies (1)13
378
u/ExtraLeading3376 14h ago
I can assure you crypto casinos are not agreeing to any of these and that’s where the people will flock to
101
u/burns_before_reading Knicks 14h ago
The NBA isn't trying to solve the gambling problem, they're trying to protect their brand.
65
u/Kapono24 Pistons 14h ago
100%. This is the slippery slope that we've already fallen down. It's legal to make these bets but now it's also anit-consumer to not allow unders while still allowing the overs on the same bet. People who want these bets are still going to find them, and I suppose I'm glad it'll get pushed back into the shadows a bit, but I just find it really interesting that they can hamstring bettors now. Casuals are all betting the overs anyway though, idk I'm just rambling but it's interesting to me.
→ More replies (1)29
u/deemerritt Hornets 14h ago
Anyone betting the under on a bench guy is by every definition not a casual gambler. For reference here Tidjaun Salaun averaged more than 12 minutes a game. For the Pistons Marcus Sasser averaged exactly 12 minutes a game. These are fringe rotation players and they clear this threshold.
3
u/Kapono24 Pistons 13h ago
Yeah that's kind of my point. The people who actually are betting on it need the ability to bet unders when overs are also offered, and casuals aren't betting unders on anyone anyway so I'm not totally sure what this will solve.
2
u/deemerritt Hornets 13h ago
Hopefully it eliminates the temptation for bench players to throw games or manipulate the market
2
u/Kapono24 Pistons 13h ago
But like OP said that's still available through other channels. If somebody wants to do that it's still going to happen.
3
u/dgvhjiiuyttrrffcvbjj 14h ago
depends how they calculate "expected" minutes. Salaun and Sasser both get DNPs that would tank their average well below 12 if those games counted toward the average.
→ More replies (1)26
u/NuclearGhandi1 Knicks 13h ago
A lot of casual betters are not going to flock there. Most stick with draftkings and fanduel and a good chunk would get off it entirely if both of those folded
12
3
u/Cudi_buddy Kings 12h ago
Yep. Gambling wasn’t even a thing for my group like 10 years ago. Maybe we would place a bet if we visited Tahoe or Vegas on occasion. But now a ton of coworkers bet and it’s honestly bizarre as hell. These guys do it because it is like a game right there on their phone.
16
9
21
u/EfficientOrdinary659 14h ago
lmao if you think illegal betting websites are paying to suspected cheating customers
→ More replies (4)2
u/ositola Lakers 13h ago
There are crypto casinos? Lol
We combined two horrible things to create a Voltron level threat?
→ More replies (1)3
u/Cudi_buddy Kings 12h ago
One degenerate money pit meets another degenerate money pit. Come lose your money twice as fast
52
u/accounthatburns 14h ago
How bad is internal gambling that they had to do this
27
u/DoctorMansteel Celtics 14h ago
I think we all know the answer.
This shit is costing them money. The only reason they'd even consider losing money is if it keeps them from the liability of losing potentially more money.
→ More replies (1)7
u/WagonWheel22 Bucks 13h ago
It's not currently costing them money, rather court battles, brand image, and goodwill amongst fans is what's costing them. Hard to quantify but certainly something.
Also, in the future when another betting scandal pops up and people threaten to further legislate, they can point to these actions as something they did to address the problem.
3
u/DoctorMansteel Celtics 13h ago
I didn't make my point clearly. I meant that this decision is costing them money and the only reason they'd willingly lose money is if it saved them money in the long run.
45
u/AnkitPancakes Thunder 14h ago
This seems targeted to make it harder for players to throw games bc of bets a la rozier or jontay
3
13
u/NewPrints 14h ago
Wait, so are “expected minutes” going to be reported now?
Or are they going to let you bet overs without clearly communicating the limited play time and people will just have to infer the limited minutes by the lack of an under?
→ More replies (2)
31
18
26
7
17
u/thisisjustascreename Bulls 14h ago
Man if I knew opening tip bets were a thing I'd have made a fortune betting against Nikola Vucevic all those years he was on the Bulls, guy sucked ass at tipoffs, I think he was under 20%.
15
→ More replies (2)7
11
u/iKnife Celtics 13h ago
Half measures will not ultimately stem the tide, working with the sportsbooks to help them 'self-regulate' is just PR. We need to get rid of the public health scourge that is gambling: we know it is driving a bankruptcy crisis for young men, 10xing rates of bankruptcy where it is legalized; it also drives a huge mental health epidemic of depression and anxiety, and feeds off addiction that it cultivates. Putting gambling on all our phones is new, newly legal, and a totally socially destructive innovation.
The only 'value' tech mediated gambling creates is funneling money upwards to some of the very richest, scummiest personalities in our society. It is only able to do this because big gambling bribes all of our media outlets with huge sponsorship deals, otherwise there would be an overwhelming public backlash. On social media sites which the public still has some control over, like reddit, we need to cultivate outrage to try to radiate this cancer to death before it metastasizes further.
20
u/Dangerous_Ad5039 14h ago
If you need to make all these changes maybe there’s just a huge problem with it
7
44
u/byteturtle Suns 14h ago edited 14h ago
Gambling is legal, cats already out of the bag on that one, and I'm honestly conflicted cause while I don't gamble I do have other vices and I tend to be pretty open minded in that people should be able to do what they want even if its harmful to them.
That said, if the NBA really wants me think they care about this issue they would break their partnerships with gambling companies like FanDuel and stop ramming it down my throat in ads every 45 seconds. They won't because theres too much money to be made but until then Im going to continue to believe that they don't actually give a shit about the integrity of the game.
18
u/Kruphix_Horizon Kings 9h ago
Ban ads for gambling, alcohol, and drugs. People will find ways to indulge their vices, but we don't need psychologists designing ads to get kids and young adults hooked on vices as early as possible.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (91)3
u/morosco Celtics 14h ago
The league's partnerships with the gambling companies is the only reason they can "ban" anything, or have access to the information that reveals suspicious betting patterns and such. Like you said, it's out of the bag, so they had to go pretty quickly from pretending it didn't exist (which I remember them getting mocked for), to having a stake and a say in how it all works and it is monitored.
The ads are a bit much though, ya.
14
u/MddlingAges Knicks 14h ago
Does this include the President’s family’s sport books, Kalshi and Polymarket, that the President alone regulates, or not?
5
u/Old_Fun_9430 14h ago
Realistically it’s a net benefit to the sportsbooks because they will just offer horrific odds now on the one sided bets
6
u/garebearsfavorite Kings 14h ago
Depends on how they define sportsbooks. From what I understand places like Kalshi and Polymarket are “prediction markets” and are operating through loopholes that they aren’t technically betting. If this only affects the sites that are designated as sportsbooks, it won’t change anything.
5
5
8
u/Danibear285 Clippers 14h ago edited 14h ago
Don’t worry. We still have our Prediction Contracts. Again, not bets.
10
9
4
5
3
3
u/MarketingChoice6244 9h ago
Unders are the main problem. They put it all in the control of a single person who can then take advantage of it.
11
u/Balls_Deep92 14h ago
lol this isn’t going to change shit, if anything this helps the books
21
u/bluejams 14h ago
Its not about the books, its about making it harder for a single player to rig the outcomes.
→ More replies (5)
6
7
u/redfish-rock Spurs 14h ago
We need to ban it altogether. It's a cancer on the sport and is ruining the lives of young men across the country.
10
u/dgvhjiiuyttrrffcvbjj 14h ago edited 14h ago
- "Under" bets on players expected to play less than 12 minutes a game
why not eliminate under bets completely? If you want to bet a team/player over performs fine, obviously that can't be artificially tanked. But anyone could artificially tank a stat with motivation. Like wasn't Rozier "expected" to play more than 12 min in the games he's in trouble for?
13
u/TripleDoubleFart 14h ago
Because you want two-way lines. Having one-way lines just allows the books to screw bettors over even more.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)8
u/howmanypintobeans 14h ago
They aren’t going to offer the over without the under, their whole goal is to get equal action on both sides. I’d be fine with banning player props entirely though
3
u/MisterGoldenSun Hornets 13h ago
Books offer all sorts of one-sided bets. They will continue offering overs and will continue to make money as long as they set odds where they have the edge, which they will.
4
u/CoCAllpro NBA 13h ago
That is absolutely not how this works. Books don’t offer unders on TDs in nfl for example
6
2
u/spmahn Nuggets 13h ago
Some do, but the reason for that is that 99% of players in an NFL game are only going to score 1 or 0 TDs per game, so an under bet in that scenario doesn’t make sense. It would be impossible to set odds for that situation.
→ More replies (1)2
7
u/Twisbi Bucks 14h ago
This does nothing, people will still be able to do it. Perhaps the nba commissioner shouldn’t have been a champion of sports betting to begin with.
→ More replies (8)
2
2
2
u/Fat-Villante Spurs 14h ago
Very good decision
Although it won't stop the refs from fucking with the games
2
2
2
2
u/VastAmphibian Lakers 13h ago
unrelated to the topic but I do appreciate shams correctly using me instead of I here. there's somehow been an overcorrection where people now think "and I" is the only correct form.
2
2
2
2
2
4
u/Expert-Yam6577 Mavericks 14h ago
The NBA is officially involved in what bets are allowed for us to gamble on. Fascinating times.
We benefit from gambling. We help dictate gambling inventory.
We also have no vested interest in gambling outcomes. We just had a problem with certain outcomes so we're getting rid of them.
4
u/microcosmologist Bucks 8h ago
It's not enough. All sports betting will corrupt the game until it is outlawed completely. They should have never legalized it in the first place and it's a 100% guarantee that someone inside the sport is manipulating the system. Where money is involved there is too much incentive not to. Just get rid of it entirely.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/RonBakerErasure 14h ago
This will surely stop the death threats
3
→ More replies (6)6
u/RFFF1996 Thunder 14h ago
That is more a society issue than a nba issue
A league cannot make deranged people stop being deranged.
→ More replies (1)2
u/esports_consultant 14h ago
NBA owners can definitely stop supporting politicians and political initiatives which increase the derangement of society however.
5
u/CactusHooping 14h ago
Under is the worst unlike over which means they are actually trying.This is a good start.
5
u/rude__goldberg 14h ago
interesting that the books went for this since unders are probably a big moneymaker for them (overs are better for the gambler)
3
u/platinum92 Hawks 14h ago
You cede ground on a little regulation that you agree to in order to prevent stronger regulation that you didn't.
1.4k
u/brainspl0ad Clippers 14h ago
Lmao Charania "per me" is funny af.