I still see no difference between Pinnacle and FanDuel, etc. It's still bookmaking in the end. It does show you that making something illegal does not make it go away, the business routes around the law. Some people apparently want to waste money on gambling just like some people want to take drugs or visit hookers. In the end is it worth making things illegal knowing it won't make any difference?
The 'skill vs chance' test for illegality makes no sense to me. With all sports, there's luck involved as well as skill. So by betting on them, you are at the mercy of luck too. Even a game of chess might involve luck - a player might have a terrible headache, or get distracted at a key point in the game.<p>Surely the test, if it is to be used at all, should outlaw games where there is no skill involved at all (e.g. roulette, lotteries)
This might be a semantics approach - okay, it purely is a semantics approach - but if I can use "skill" to pick a football player in the "daily fantasy sports" realm and put real money up on the selection I get the framing. However, if that player can get busted for DUI or domestic violence or assault and battery which might keep them from playing in the game, I consider that a game of luck. You know, there's a chance they don't ever take the field. And, personally, I don't have the means to bail them out. So, yeah, just my take.
William Hill runs betting shops in many towns in the UK. Sports betting is promoted on the home page: <a href="http://sports.williamhill.com/" rel="nofollow">http://sports.williamhill.com/</a><p>There's an American site: <a href="http://www.williamhill.us/" rel="nofollow">http://www.williamhill.us/</a> though it seems they've just licensed the name.<p>How does the latter exist if online sports betting is illegal in the US?