To be honest, I'm glad to know there will be at least one Hockey space I visit that isn't going to be inundated with sports betting ads, so I appreciate it.
It's a terrible thing. The AFL in Australia let it go too far, and now they are hooked on sponsorship money. We have had to endure the mind-numbing ads at all hours (on Amy broadcast), and it has forced our government to launch an enquiry looking to clean up the sector and reduce the harm to children who grow up thinking it's normal to know the odds and place a wager.
Oh, and if anyone consistently wins, they are simply banned from wagering. If they lose continually, they offer enticements to keep them wagering and thus have them lose more.
Thanks for keeping this a gambling-free space. It's exhausting to see so much sports journalism filtered through the lens of money-lines or spreads.
IMO, the most two most insidious things about sports gambling coverage are the way that the line between analysis and advertising for gambling companies has been blurred and when a publication simultaneously mines stories about gambling addiction for articles while also posting ads and articles for gambling. I recognize the latter is a choice made at the business level, not the individual journalists, but it still feels incredibly hypocritical to me.
On the extreme side Pete Rose is a good reminder how slippery that slope is. Another example is the Henry Hill story about college BB. Sadly it is inevitable that somebody will try to fix the results so they have better (bettor?) odds. It’s as simple as somebody involved in the sport
getting deeper into debt, looking for a way out. They have all kinds of meetings telling athletes to stay away from gambling sites… but they’re specifically designed to be addictive by behavioral scientists. The guys who designed slot machines, video poker, also designed video games, twitter likes. The addiction is intentional. It’s very predictable. It will happen. And, fans will wonder, was that a miss? Or a “throw”?
Thank you. Even as a public school teacher in Missouri, I will vote against the measure to legalize sports betting. I don't care how many Rockwood district teachers (who get paid better than most teachers in the state) that go on a commercial to cry that they don't get paid enough. (Not what they say, but it's what I hear.). Sorry, I will make less money if it means fewer lives in my state are ruined by sports gambling. So I support conversation about this. It isn't benign.
Sean--totally different subject. Can you post or reply what is the status of John Klingberg? I can't find anything. Still with Toronto, injured reserve? Free agent? Thanks. Bob
To be honest, I'm glad to know there will be at least one Hockey space I visit that isn't going to be inundated with sports betting ads, so I appreciate it.
100 Degree Hockey has received the same pitches from betting companies, and we reject them always. It's not part of our brand.
It's a terrible thing. The AFL in Australia let it go too far, and now they are hooked on sponsorship money. We have had to endure the mind-numbing ads at all hours (on Amy broadcast), and it has forced our government to launch an enquiry looking to clean up the sector and reduce the harm to children who grow up thinking it's normal to know the odds and place a wager.
Oh, and if anyone consistently wins, they are simply banned from wagering. If they lose continually, they offer enticements to keep them wagering and thus have them lose more.
Thanks for keeping this a gambling-free space. It's exhausting to see so much sports journalism filtered through the lens of money-lines or spreads.
IMO, the most two most insidious things about sports gambling coverage are the way that the line between analysis and advertising for gambling companies has been blurred and when a publication simultaneously mines stories about gambling addiction for articles while also posting ads and articles for gambling. I recognize the latter is a choice made at the business level, not the individual journalists, but it still feels incredibly hypocritical to me.
On the extreme side Pete Rose is a good reminder how slippery that slope is. Another example is the Henry Hill story about college BB. Sadly it is inevitable that somebody will try to fix the results so they have better (bettor?) odds. It’s as simple as somebody involved in the sport
getting deeper into debt, looking for a way out. They have all kinds of meetings telling athletes to stay away from gambling sites… but they’re specifically designed to be addictive by behavioral scientists. The guys who designed slot machines, video poker, also designed video games, twitter likes. The addiction is intentional. It’s very predictable. It will happen. And, fans will wonder, was that a miss? Or a “throw”?
Thank you. Even as a public school teacher in Missouri, I will vote against the measure to legalize sports betting. I don't care how many Rockwood district teachers (who get paid better than most teachers in the state) that go on a commercial to cry that they don't get paid enough. (Not what they say, but it's what I hear.). Sorry, I will make less money if it means fewer lives in my state are ruined by sports gambling. So I support conversation about this. It isn't benign.
I just don't like the look of the NHL embracing gambling. It's a slippery slope that goes no where good. I appreciate you keeping this space clean.
Thank you, Sean!
Sean--totally different subject. Can you post or reply what is the status of John Klingberg? I can't find anything. Still with Toronto, injured reserve? Free agent? Thanks. Bob
Recovering still from bilateral hip surgery. If recovery goes well he’ll be trying to sign with a team in early 2025