Are Sports Betting Sites Braver Than Poker Sites

[JPFisher55]

I do not bet on sports. I love to play online poker. As US citizen, I am dismayed by how many poker sites have abandoned the US marker despite the fact that not one poker website, employee, executive, director or shareholder has been indicted by US DOJ.
So I decided to briefly investigate how many sports betting sites appear to have left the US market. To my dismay, I found one website on which it seemed that a much higher percentage of sports betting sites continue to service US market than poker sites.
Despite being the targets of the DOJ, are sports betting websites braver than poker websites and why?

[PartyPooperGuy]

Sports betting sites are laregly owned by the mafia, rather than the pubic. Publically-traded companies are subject to more regulations than kingpin-controlled co.'s

[Homer]

No, I don't think they are more brave. Since the gambling bill, WWTS, Bowmans, Canbet, Pinnacle (equivalent of Party Poker) and Carib have pulled out of the U.S. market. Many will follow after the Super Bowl.

[136913691369]

edit: homer beat me to it.

[PropPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Sports betting sites are laregly owned by the mafia, rather than the pubic.

[/ QUOTE ]

If only this was the case for poker too [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[William]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sports betting sites are laregly owned by the mafia, rather than the pubic.

[/ QUOTE ]

If only this was the case for poker too [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
NH

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
To my dismay, I found one website on which it seemed that a much higher percentage of sports betting sites continue to service US market than poker sites.

[/ QUOTE ]


another observation:

poker-sites frequently have skins.
So when crypto pulls out that's something like 10 sites pulling out and I don't think they have a choice in the matter.

Sports-betting sites aren't 'skins' as far as I know.

Some sports-betting sites like Ladbrokes and William Hill and EuroSport (or whatever the sports-betting side of EuroPoker was called) were never even taking U.S. bets even before the legislation.

And several biggies have pulled out since the legislation.


In fact, because of the added profitability of line-shopping across several different sites, the legislation could very well be having a more dramatic impact on many good internet sports-bettors.
with online-poker, you can be profitable just playing one site if you want. But with sports-betting it would be silly to just have one site and one set of lines.
Losing Pinnacle and their favorable lines hurts A LOT.

And now Mansion is no longer accepting deposits from U.S. customers, although those still with funds on the site can continue to use the SportsBet Exchange there.


I'm really hoping Homer isn't right about more sites pulling out after the Super Bowl. But I think Homer being incorrect about this is extremely unlikely.

[Red Lion]

That is incorrect. If you are from the US you were never able to bet on sports w/ Mansion

[MicroBob]

Okay. I hadn't followed it very closely because my Mansion account is at zero anyway.

[TheNoodleMan]

[ QUOTE ]
That is incorrect. If you are from the US you were never able to bet on sports w/ Mansion

[/ QUOTE ]
All of us that celebrated the Steelers win on opening night disagree.