Is sports betting morally wrong for sports writers?

Johnny Avelio posted play AA odds for years at Bally's, and now at the Wynn, but you can't play into them, as previously delineated.

 

Any updates, Drew Carey? Remain curious. Tks.

 

I think my point is that, in a game just as blackjack or Let it Ride, the odds are stacked in favor of the house (different games are stacked differently in their favor, with blackjack, craps and baccarat being the most friendly to the gambler). That's not true with sports betting.

You always have a 50-50 shot of winning and someone who knows enough can increase the odds in his or her favor through research (though even the best sports bettors would be doing well to increase those odds to 60-40 in their favor). The line is simply designed to encourage action on both sides. The vig is just a fee you must pay for using the service. There are no inherent disadvantages to the gambler as there are in floor games and slots.

 

Tell that to the guy who wins ten bets against an 11-10 line, and loses ten, on $100 bets. At the end of that twenty-bet series, he's out $100.

You risk two grand on the pass line in craps over a period of time, your theoretical projected long-term loss is around $28.

Sports betting is a great entertainment bargain, in that you're getting
three hours worth of juice for your money. But for ninnies who think they know what they're doing but don't, it makes craps and 21 look benign.

 

This is absolutely right, Ben. I puzzle over why SI even prints those "picks." Yeah, if there's no spread, New England over KC last week was pretty solid, even with Brady going down. But who in the world didn't know that?

 

The equivalent of a seven-inch putt.