DFS gambling continues to win over the European market. 24 September 2020. DFS operator Monkey Knife Fight buys rival FantasyDraft. 7 September 2020.

For gambling disorder have been met for at least 3 months but for less than 12 months. In sustained remission: After full criteria for gambling disorder were previously met, none of the criteria for gambling disorder have been met during a period of 12 months or longer. Specify current severity. The term “gambling” is a highly stigmatized word and comes with much baggage attached to it. But regardless of your definition, it is clear DFS is legal federally under current US law written specifically for fantasy sports. Named after a famous scene in The Simpsons, Monkey Knife Fight is a DFS sportsbook that is unique in every way. The more traditional fantasy sports sites, such as FanDuel and DraftKings, run contests where players pick their line up within a salary cap and compete against each other.

Double super times pay video poker. Play Super Times Pay Poker for FREE Click on a game below to play now. Or, to see if this game is available at your favorite casino, click on that casino below. You can find Super Times Pay Poker at the following Harrah's casinos. Double Super Times Pay Poker. Join to Play Find in casinos. Double Super Times Pay Poker gives you exciting and frequent multiplier action, on average every eight hands. With max bet per hand, two multipliers are possible- on the deal and again on the draw, for a combined multiplier of up to 20X! It's that simple! Bet six credits for a shot at the Super Times Pay multiplier, where winning hands are multiplied from two to ten times the standard win. This winning multiplier moves left to the multiplier box while you play out your hand. Remove videopoker.com from the list of sites. Displaying in Compatibility View. You have reached the maximum of 5,000 Players Club points per day. You can keep playing as much as you'd like, of course! Points will resume counting after midnight Pacific. Close View Players Club.

There is a debate raging in the gaming world when it comes to daily fantasy sports over whether DFS is gambling. The technical answer to this question depends on what state you’re in, as some states consider DFS contests gambling, while other states’ laws seem to designate DFS contests as a skill-based game and therefore not gambling.

However, on a visceral level, the vast majority of people would quickly place DFS in the gambling column without a second thought. As MGM Resorts CEO Jim Murren stated in an interview with News3LV Dafabet mobile apk game. , “But who in the world thinks that FanDuel or DraftKings — who’s going to tell me that’s not gambling? Of course it’s gambling.”

This opinion extends far beyond Murren and casino executives.

Look no further than the reaction to a recent ESPNW column where the author details his weekly practice of playing real-money DFS with his nine-year-old son. If social media is any guide, even hardcore gamblers and poker players seem to be questioning this decision.

The general reaction to that article is also telling, as it appears to be a clear indication that many people feel DFS is indeed gambling. Had the author said he was playing $1 online chess or backgammon games with his son, I doubt it would raise too many eyebrows.

I don’t want to cast aspersions on the author’s decision to play DFS with his son (that’s an activity other people can engage in), considering I’ve taught my boys the rudimentary rules of draw poker, although we play for chips, not money.

That being said, I do have some serious misgivings about the article.

The big problem the article creates

So, let’s ignore the moral and ethical objections people have to children and gambling.

Let’s also forget the fact the author is breaking the terms and conditions of whatever DFS site he is using, as all DFS sites require a person to be at least 18 years of age, and in some places older. If DFS were regulated, such as online poker is in New Jersey, this father could be brought up on charges for allowing his son to participate in these contests.

The real problem many DFS players and legal gambling advocates like myself have with the column is that the anti-online gambling crowd could leverage this story and use it to further their agenda. It has turned the possible (underage children will be able to gamble online) into a reality, and at the same time the article probably caused some consternation for executives at DFS sites FanDuel and DraftKings.

Is DFS gambling?

For instance, lines such as, “But when he got his first taste of daily fantasy sports this spring during the NBA playoffs, he was hooked…” seem to be taken right out of a Gamblers Anonymous speech. (In fact, GA may add fantasy sports to its book.)

In addition to setting the legalization discussion back, this is the kind of image DFS companies don’t want people to conjure in their minds when they think of daily fantasy sports. Yet here is ESPNW, essentially promoting the idea of a father and a son wagering money on DFS contests together, and looking at it as the new “playing catch.”

The image of a child “hooked” on fantasy sports, anxiously watching football on a Sunday and fretting over his fantasy lineup should be troubling to anyone, whether or not they are pro- or anti-gambling. This article is quite literally the outlier scenario that Newsweek created in their anti-online gaming piece last year, complete with the image of a nine-year-old boy gambling online, only instead of poker, it’s DFS. And to top it all off, we have a parent encouraging this behavior.

Furthermore, the author’s justification for teaching his son how to play DFS has nothing to do with the “DFS isn’t really gambling” debate. At one point in the column, the author describes how he internally weighed the perceived positive aspects of playing DFS with his son and the potential negative aspects of teaching his child how to wager money on sports, as he wondered: “What if I am planting the seed for a future gambling problem as an adult?”

When someone willing to teach their nine-year-old the ins and outs of selecting a DFS lineup can’t avoid drawing parallels between DFS and traditional gambling, it’s time to reevaluate how we categorize DFS.

The creation of such a vivid image, a child playing daily fantasy sports for money, could do a whole lot of harm to DFS’ efforts to avoid the gambling designation. It could also have far-reaching effects on online gambling in general, particularly if the anti-online gambling crowd starts lumping DFS in with other forms of online gambling.

The debate over whether daily fantasy sports does, in fact, constitute gambling is heating up.

In the wake of Yahoo’s recent entrance into the DFS market, Legal Sports Report’s Dustin Gouker noted that the Wall Street Journal and New York Times had little problem labeling DFS as either “gambling” or as legitimizing “a pastime that closely resembles gambling.”

Gouker also surveyed 152 articles covering the launch, concluding that (only) about one-third of the articles include either explicit or “soft” references linking DFS to gambling, while the remainder avoided the terms “betting,” “gambling,” or “wagering,” instead choosing to characterize DFS as a way to “win cash” or “compete for cash prizes.”

And Howard Stutz of the Las Vegas Review-Journal took stock of the “debate,” revealing that both gaming operators and regulators alike in Nevada widely believe that DFS “constitutes unregulated gambling.”

On the flip side, both FanDuel and DraftKings insist that their DFS products are skill games, and therefore are not gambling. As Stutz noted, the DraftKings website states that “We are a U.S.-based skill games company and all of our contests are operated 100 percent legally under United States and Canadian law.” Stutz also cited an e-mail from a FanDuel spokesman claiming that its product “is a daily fantasy sports experience, classified as a skill game and NOT gambling.”

The problem is – at least in practical terms – the argument that DFS is a skill game and therefore not gambling is completely non sequitur because the two things are not mutually exclusive.

What is gambling?

Gambling requires three things:

1. Consideration. There must be a wager of some value in order to win something of value.

1. Prize. What you get when you win, whether of monetary value or something else.

1. Chance. There must be at least enough variance that an unskilled or lesser skilled bettor can win said prize, at least in the short run.

Other definitions are sometimes too narrow to be fundamentally correct. This is particularly true of legal definitions which may vary in definitions of the term “chance” by trying to insert the presence (or a “preponderance”) of skill into the equation.

You see, poker is a game of skill, but it is also clearly gambling. Even if you were to argue that a skilled poker player is “investing” and not gambling, then it would also be unequivocally true that a lesser or unskilled player must be gambling, even if he thinks he is playing with an edge but really isn’t. What the player thinks he is doing is irrelevant.

In essence, the very existence of skilled poker players – playing with an edge and for a profit – depends on the presence of lesser skilled players willing to gamble at a disadvantage against them. You can’t have a skilled poker player without a compensating gambler. Therefore, though poker is a skill game, it is also most definitely a gambling game, regardless of a preponderance of skill.

Thus, in my view, legal interpretations which attempt to qualify poker as being either a game of skill or a game of chance by virtue of predominance are insufficient practically speaking, because such interpretations only identify what the winners (the “skillers”) are doing, and not what the losers (the “gamblers”) are doing.

Similarly, the existence of skilled DFS players – playing with an edge and for a profit – depends on the presence of lesser skilled players willing to gamble at a disadvantage against them, whether they know they are playing at a disadvantage or not.

DFS meets all of the requirements of the fundamental definition of gambling. DFS hasconsideration (the player wagers money), prize (the player wins cash prizes), and chance (enough variance that any schmuck can win – and no DFS operator will tell you otherwise). Therefore, like poker, DFS is a gambling game.

Dfs Cash Game Lineups

The presence of skill is irrelevant.

As an aside, particularly in a game like poker where the competition has gotten tougher over time, a player who might once have been able to play professionally but can no longer beat the rake may now be gambling even if he still thinks he’s playing with an edge. And as I wrote last month, the same is likely to occur in DFS (see DFS and Lessons from Poker: How Bright is the Future? And for Whom?).

The preponderance by population argument: Gamblers vs. Skillers

This is what we know about poker: Simply by virtue of the rake, more money is lost than is won. We also either know or can infer that there are (and have been) far more losers than winners.

The same can be inferred about DFS. By virtue of the rake, there is more money being lost than won in DFS. And there are likely far more losers than winners, even if it’s possible two-thirds of DFSers think they are winning or break-even.

Now we’ve already established that in order for there to be skillers (winners), there must be gamblers (losers) willing to play at a disadvantage against them. We can also surmise that in DFS, there are likely many more gamblers (losers) by population than skillers (winners).

And if there are more people gambling than skilling, is it not reasonable to argue that DFS has a preponderance of gambling by population?

So why the “debate”?

By any practical definition, DFS is clearly a gambling product. So why are we having this “debate”?

It’s no mystery why FanDuel and DraftKings would argue that DFS is a skill game and therefore not gambling, even if the argument is non sequitur: It is in their best interest to do so.

The fact is that in the U.S., commonly recognized forms of commercial gambling are generally either regulated or banned. Currently, DFS is considered illegal in at least five states but unregulated and (apparently) non-illegal everywhere else – at least for the moment. As such, FanDuel and DraftKings have every incentive to encourage the idea that DFS is not a form of gambling in order to maintain the status quo.

My Dfs

Their argument is very not likely based on any moral conviction that their product does not constitute gambling, where the entire premise of DFS is to offer a sports betting product – and one that has a very particular bonus of being able to be offered in states where traditional sports betting is currently outlawed.

Dfs Gambling

As a casual observer, I accept that DFS operators have every incentive to argue that DFS is a skill-based game, and is therefore not gambling. And I accept that they will continue to do so, even if – at least practically speaking – it’s a ridiculous argument.

Whether legislators will see it that way on a state-by-state basis is a different question. That said, I do suspect it inevitable that anything that looks this much like gambling is likely to draw increasing attention from state legislators. And though interpretations may vary by state, I also suspect there’s a reasonable chance that a form of gambling that has such striking similarities to poker may be treated much the same way as a poker on a state-by-state basis.