CU becomes first NCAA school to partner with sports betting company

[Bison]

I guess there will be money to renovate Mile High Stadium instead of building a new stadium again in about 10 years.

 

[somebody]

Dude. I’ve taken your material and shown you why pools are legal. You’re right: we’re done.

Your rigor is so poor, you practically beg for an argument.

 

[Buffs35]

This thread feels like a lot of my previously bad relationships.

 

[manhattanbuff]

Your rigor is so poor, you practically beg for an argument.

So, you’ve got nothing. Great talk.

 

[somebody]

So, you’ve got nothing. Great talk.

That is a strange interpretation of "your argument is ****, because it's not backed up by any solid evidence, whereas I showed you links to the actual law."

 

[manhattanbuff]

That is a strange interpretation of "your argument is ****, because it's not backed up by any solid evidence, whereas I showed you links to the actual law."

And I showed you IN THE LAW you quoted that the specific contests in question were legal.

What you can’t seem to get in this entire discussion: office MM pools are games of skill. They contrast these with games of chance, which they describe as random by nature.

According to Wisconsin law, games of skill are exempted from prohibition. I even pointed to the subsection of the law that stated the skill exemption.

That you have continued to ignore this information is why this discussion continues. You insult me when you’re being the dumbass who fails to understand a really simple matter.

What’s even worse is that your so-called “proof” that post-dates the interpretation from a big firm in Wisconsin doesn’t even mention pools. It is only a regurgitation of the current law and states the fact that (as I’ve said) there are people who want to change the law to enable more gambling.

I am incredulous that you have the temerity to call my arguments dumb when you roll skidmark style and refuse to even engage the core issue.

Let me give you a hint: in order for you to win your now “joke,” you’d have to show that MM Office Pools are games of chance. Since the state hasn’t cracked down on any vig free MM Office Pools, we don’t have any cases. It would be stupid anyway, because, ummm... picking winning teams in a pool is quite difficult. It requires skill. That’s why it’s not illegal under the gaming law in that forsaken state.

 

[somebody]

And I showed you IN THE LAW you quoted that the specific contests in question were legal.

No, you didn't. The law specifically states that sports gambling is illegal. You claimed but didn't prove that courts have ruled otherwise.

What you can’t seem to get in this entire discussion: office MM pools are games of skill. They contrast these with games of chance, which they describe as random by nature.

The law specifically says some skill doesn't matter, it's still illegal. You have yet to prove otherwise.

According to Wisconsin law, games of skill are exempted from prohibition. I even pointed to the subsection of the law that stated the skill exemption.

Wrong. The law specifically states that sports gambling is illegal. You claimed but didn't prove that courts have ruled otherwise.

That you have continued to ignore this information is why this discussion continues. You insult me when you’re being the dumbass who fails to understand a really simple matter.

What’s even worse is that your so-called “proof” that post-dates the interpretation from a big firm in Wisconsin doesn’t even mention pools. It is only a regurgitation of the current law and states the fact that (as I’ve said) there are people who want to change the law to enable more gambling.

I am incredulous that you have the temerity to call my arguments dumb when you roll skidmark style and refuse to even engage the core issue.

Let me give you a hint: in order for you to win your now “joke,” you’d have to show that MM Office Pools are games of chance. Since the state hasn’t cracked down on any vig free MM Office Pools, we don’t have any cases. It would be stupid anyway, because, ummm... picking winning teams in a pool is quite difficult. It requires skill. That’s why it’s not illegal under the gaming law in that forsaken state.

Your "information" is just your misinformed opinion. I gave you the link to the law, and even quoted the applicable sections here. You pretend the law doesn't matter, but fail to cite a single court case that backs up that opinion. BTW, the most recent article about this topic that I quoted specifically says sports gambling is illegal, which according to Wisconsin law falls under betting as described by the section I quoted. Prove it is otherwise, all you have done so far is give your opinion. Where are the court cases that back you up?

 

[manhattanbuff]

No, you didn't. The law specifically states that sports gambling is illegal. You claimed but didn't prove that courts have ruled otherwise.


The law specifically says some skill doesn't matter, it's still illegal. You have yet to prove otherwise.


Wrong. The law specifically states that sports gambling is illegal. You claimed but didn't prove that courts have ruled otherwise.


Your "information" is just your misinformed opinion. I gave you the link to the law, and even quoted the applicable sections here. You pretend the law doesn't matter, but fail to cite a single court case that backs up that opinion. BTW, the most recent article about this topic that I quoted specifically says sports gambling is illegal, which according to Wisconsin law falls under betting as described by the section I quoted. Prove it is otherwise, all you have done so far is give your opinion. Where are the court cases that back you up?

Office pools are distinct from bets on sports because of vig and (especially in WI) the state’s desire to ban unregulated casinos that earn from betting in games of chance.

You think that a MM Office Pool is the same as making a bet. It isn’t. Reasons already given many times.

And, I wouldn’t call a multi-office law firm that practices within the state in question to be misinformed. You do, so I guess since you’re also a Psychiatrist and PhD in Education, so your expertise also extends to the laws of Wisconsin over people entered into their State Bar.

BTW, there are no cases because Wisconsin hasn’t prosecuted anyone for running a vig free MM Office Pool. That’s because it would be difficult to prove that a vig free Office Pool fits their sports betting definition despite your assertion.

I never claimed that courts ruled on anything. I only said that states needing to deal with a new world after PASPA was overturned. The information you’ve posted corroborates that view.

This will be my last reply to you.

 

[somebody]

Office pools are distinct from bets on sports because of vig and (especially in WI) the state’s desire to ban unregulated casinos that earn from betting in games of chance.

You think that a MM Office Pool is the same as making a bet. It isn’t. Reasons already given many times.

And, I wouldn’t call a multi-office law firm that practices within the state in question to be misinformed. You do, so I guess since you’re also a Psychiatrist and PhD in Education, so your expertise also extends to the laws of Wisconsin over people entered into their State Bar.

BTW, there are no cases because Wisconsin hasn’t prosecuted anyone for running a vig free MM Office Pool. That’s because it would be difficult to prove that a vig free Office Pool fits their sports betting definition despite your assertion.

I never claimed that courts ruled on anything. I only said that states needing to deal with a new world after PASPA was overturned. The information you’ve posted corroborates that view.

This will be my last reply to you.

You keep repeating the same bs, despite the clearly written law on betting and zero proof office pools aren't covered, and despite lots of articles that say they are. Everyone knows those are rarely prosecuted, nice try at a new twist, though.

 

[hawg1]

Can we take a vote on who “won” this argument and have it be over?

 

[SpacemanSpiff]

Can we take a vote on who “won” this argument and have it be over?

I haven’t even read it, but my money is on manhattan to cover.

 

[somebody]

I haven’t even read it, but my money is in manhattan to cover.

In my mid-twenties, I got up to go to the head, and the guy behind me engaged me in meaningless conversation. After a few minutes, I told him, "man, I really just need to go to the bathroom." He gave me a Cheshire smile and said, "I know."