U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-10-2011, 01:43 AM
 
1,645 posts, read 3,112,775 times
Reputation: 1367
I voted "yes" on this as well.

It doesn't even seem like a partisan issue, but a common sense issue. I have no plans to bet on sporting events and get involved in anyway, as I have little interest, but those who do should have that right, and now at least the state can benefit from the revenue. Even if most of it is squandered, that is still a few million in the pockets of positive projects in NJ.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-10-2011, 07:43 AM
 
Location: Center of the universe
24,757 posts, read 33,061,695 times
Reputation: 11780
Quote:
Originally Posted by daliowa View Post
College football and basketball were included, though you can't really call them amateur

The law that passed stated "professional, certain college or amateur sport or athletic events"

It seems to be differentiating between college and amateur sport.

Wonder what "amateur sport" NJ will allow betting on?
NCAA basketball and football not including NJ schools such at Rutgers.

College bowl games, March Madness, that kind of thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2011, 08:09 AM
 
Location: NJ
16,097 posts, read 11,102,249 times
Reputation: 10256
Default election betting our only hope

If the state offers a line on political elections this might be NJ's only chance at redemption as the line would need to change from the predictable hereditory election of Dems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2011, 11:34 AM
 
Location: Northern NJ
7,492 posts, read 7,437,686 times
Reputation: 10677
Quote:
Originally Posted by daliowa View Post
I voted yes.

My hubby voted no, but only because amateur sports were included in the possible legalized gambling.
There are no amateur sports.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2011, 11:53 AM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,542 posts, read 17,839,124 times
Reputation: 3681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801 View Post
Exactly. I was surprised that there were so many votes AGAINST it. People bet on football and other sports all the time through the bookies. They want the criminals to reap all the profits?
i voted against it because i do believe, to some degree, that allowing more and more gambling brings other problems. problems that can be costly, and i just don't think it's worth it. the only reason why people vote for these things is the revenue it brings a given state or city. and who says criminals get all the profits? plenty of websites allow betting, they just don't operate in the U.S. it's not like local bookies are the only option right now.

but, even though i voted against it, i don't personally have an issue with gambling. go for it. but why is it ok to bet on everything except NJ college teams? stupid exceptions to laws....it's ok to gamble, just not if it involves a NJ team.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2011, 11:56 AM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,542 posts, read 17,839,124 times
Reputation: 3681
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantGardenStater View Post
I voted "yes" on this as well.

It doesn't even seem like a partisan issue, but a common sense issue. I have no plans to bet on sporting events and get involved in anyway, as I have little interest, but those who do should have that right, and now at least the state can benefit from the revenue. Even if most of it is squandered, that is still a few million in the pockets of positive projects in NJ.
i wonder what the net gain is....revenue collected vs costs of taking care of people who gambled their savings away, or the costs of people who steal to gamble, etc. i know it's their own fault...but that's why vice's are typically strictly regulated. not a very good argument against it, i know. but i do feel as though there are costs involved that no one is counting when they vote for this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2011, 06:20 AM
 
1,645 posts, read 3,112,775 times
Reputation: 1367
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp View Post
i wonder what the net gain is....revenue collected vs costs of taking care of people who gambled their savings away, or the costs of people who steal to gamble, etc. i know it's their own fault...but that's why vice's are typically strictly regulated. not a very good argument against it, i know. but i do feel as though there are costs involved that no one is counting when they vote for this.
I would say that the addictive personality gambling types don't need this referendum or a subsequent law on sports betting in Trenton to begin their addiction. Gambling is already legal in New Jersey, in the casinos in Atlantic City, and so, they already have their outlet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2011, 08:06 AM
 
Location: Center of the universe
24,757 posts, read 33,061,695 times
Reputation: 11780
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantGardenStater View Post
I would say that the addictive personality gambling types don't need this referendum or a subsequent law on sports betting in Trenton to begin their addiction. Gambling is already legal in New Jersey, in the casinos in Atlantic City, and so, they already have their outlet.
Sportsbooks are not legal in NJ.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2011, 08:17 AM
 
Location: Coastal New Jersey
51,927 posts, read 51,072,634 times
Reputation: 60960
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp View Post
i voted against it because i do believe, to some degree, that allowing more and more gambling brings other problems. problems that can be costly, and i just don't think it's worth it. the only reason why people vote for these things is the revenue it brings a given state or city. and who says criminals get all the profits? plenty of websites allow betting, they just don't operate in the U.S. it's not like local bookies are the only option right now.

but, even though i voted against it, i don't personally have an issue with gambling. go for it. but why is it ok to bet on everything except NJ college teams? stupid exceptions to laws....it's ok to gamble, just not if it involves a NJ team.
My skewed perception, perhaps. I was married to a gambler once, and he and all his friends bet large amounts of money via illegal betting. My ex lost $20K over a football season. The books make out very well. On top of that, when you can't pay, you have to borrow from people who charge you 5% interest per week and if you don't pay, you get threatening phone calls in the middle of the night. It's an ugly business and a sophisticated operation--they even record your phone calls when you make bets.

I don't know what the issue is with NJ college teams that they're excepted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2011, 08:29 AM
 
Location: Center of the universe
24,757 posts, read 33,061,695 times
Reputation: 11780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801 View Post
My skewed perception, perhaps. I was married to a gambler once, and he and all his friends bet large amounts of money via illegal betting. My ex lost $20K over a football season. The books make out very well. On top of that, when you can't pay, you have to borrow from people who charge you 5% interest per week and if you don't pay, you get threatening phone calls in the middle of the night. It's an ugly business and a sophisticated operation--they even record your phone calls when you make bets.

I don't know what the issue is with NJ college teams that they're excepted.
I think they don't want players to be affected by gambling; there might be pressure on them to shave points, give gamblers inside information, throw games, or otherwise affect the outcome of games, etc. if betting on NJ college games were allowed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top