What is the max bet limit at las vegas sportsbook? - Las
Nevada Online Sports Betting | How to Bet within the state
Sports Betting in Nevada | Sportsbook Review 2019
Bovada Sportsbook Review for 2020 | Is Bovada Legal and Legit?
DKNG - Fundamental DD Inside - DKNG
This is an example of fundamental DD that takes place at ‘smart’ money institutions based on my professional experience in IBD, Private Equity & most recently at a HF (mods can message me for proof). Not thoroughly fleshed out b/c you autists have limited attention spans, but a summary. Figured I’d take the time to give back to this community that has provided many lolz, & should be a good measuring stick when evaluating other forms of fundamental DD posted here. NFA. DKNG - DraftKings, Inc.: vertically integrated US mobile betting operator that also provides retail sports betting & back-end betting solutions through SBTech. Think of SBTech as the tech ‘market-maker’ for traditional sports betting, they do all the funny math to set the betting odds & seem to be working on back-end solutions for DKNG Casino The Big Picture
Total annual US Gambling Revenue: ~$90Bn 
Illegal Sports Betting: ~$13Bn
Horse Racing: ~$0.8Bn
Daily Fantasy Sports: ~$0.4Bn
Only ~2% of the ~$90Bn gambling revenues were placed online which is the lowest in the world where betting online is legal. For example, in other countries online gaming activity represents ~6% - ~52% of total gambling revenues, with ~12% being the average. Wall Street expects online gaming revenue to be $20Bn-$40Bn within the next 10 years. For this to be achieved, the online gambling market will have to achieve a ~30% penetration rate on total country gaming revenues. There is an expectation that this is could be easily achievable given penetration trends overseas - see page 11 of this: https://s1.rationalcdn.com/vendors/stars-group/documents/presentations/TSG-Investor-Day_March-27-2019.pdf Other catalysts include increasing adaptation of sports betting in more states. States that have both legal sports betting + online sports betting permitted: NV, NJ, WV, PA, IA. Sports betting permitted but no online: DE, MS, RI, MO, AR. Prior to COVID there was ongoing discussions across many States, especially ones with growing deficits to explore how permitting sports betting could create a fresh avenue of tax dollars. Post COVID there is an expectation that these discussions will be given extra focus as many States will be hungry for incremental tax dollars. Important to note that currently 43/50 States allow DFS, but given the small share DFS has on total Gaming Revenues, it increasingly looks like DKNG is banking on traditional sports betting for a variety of reasons, more later. There are entire articles on Google arguing this catalyst so I’ll end this here. Digging Deeper DKNG’s main offerings are Daily Fantasy Sports (“DFS”) products & traditional sports book products to its clients. Long story short, a metric to look for in my opinion (that is curiously not reported by management or remarked on) is the hold % in traditional gaming sector parlance or the ‘rake’ & compare it to the ‘traditional’ gaming products like sports betting & Blackjack. For DFS: DKNG takes ~15% of the prize pool (note: used to be ~6-11% ). Curiously, their main competitor FanDuel also has moved up to a ~15% rake recently. Google searches show the smaller competitors have a rake in the ~13% range. This ‘rake’ has grown ~2x in 6 years, but it has been a delicate move on behalf of management. Why? B/c the more ‘sophisticated’ DFS players (equal to autistic day traders on Robinhood) have noted this increase & based on some Googling, some have moved down market to the smaller players. As a side note, many live casino games have their rules altered to grow the Hold %. For example, Blackjack games with 6:5 payouts on 21 have materially higher Hold % than the traditional BJ rules that pay out 3:2. Given the findings so far, DKNG may not have much room to materially increase its hold % in DFS games in the near-term from current of 15%. More on this later. Now why the fuck is this important? This is important b/c the typical sports book (ex-Parlays) have a ~5% hold %/rake. Parlays have up to a ~30% hold (which is why it’s commonly known as the sucker’s bet), & just for reference, the average Blackjack table clocks in 14.5%. What this means: Every dollar put into these games, the “House” or DKNG, will take 15% of your money for DFS games, for sports bets they will be pocketing ~5%, up to ~30% if you’re into parlays, & we’ll just use the standard 14.5% BJ hold for the DraftKings Casino platform. So why the acquisition of SBTech & a foray into the traditional sports gambling market? As you can see previously, the illegal sports betting market is >30x the size of the current daily fantasy sports market. So it’s clear that the DFS providers including DKNG are foraying into the space to capture this user base & hopefully convert them into games that have a higher hold %, such as DFS/DKNG Casino. As of May 2020, DKNG has achieved a 30% penetration rate on its ~4mm ‘monetized’ DFS clientele to its Online Sports Book (OSB), from the OSB+DFS clientele, DKNG has converted 50% into its DraftKings Casino platform. Including non-monetized users, user base totals at 12mm. Based on these unit economics: every 1mm of additional users -> 333k monetized users for DFS -> 100k users for OSB -> 50k users for DraftKings Casino. Some Numbers – Italicized/Bolded the important
In total, DKNG has DFS paying clientele of ~4mm, the metric management focuses on is “Monthly Unique Payers (MUP)” which spans across DFS & online sports betting***. As of Q1’20 they reported 720,000*** MUPs, representing +16% YoY growth 
Average revenue per monthly user (ARPU) of ~$41, +11% YoY
Based on previous observation of Hold %, looks like ARPU growth will be limited
Since ’17, MUP has grown at a ~11% CAGR & ARPU has grown at a ~19% CAGR
As a side note: the ~4mm monetized user base was acquired at ~$122/user over 3 years. Total users cost them $41/user over the last 3 years .
They are currently EBITDA negative & Wall St expects them to be positive by 2023
I took a dive into the math driving this, here is a summary:
Based on their current cost structure they will need to have ~1.7mm MUPs at an ARPU of ~$46 to break-even. This implies total monetized users of ~10mm from ~4mm currently
Numbers that represent Risks to Long Thesis
DKNG’s user base of ~12mm is on the low end of the sector vs. its ‘brick & mortar’ competitor's user bases (online betting platforms with physical casino presence)
CZR with 55mm, MGM with 33mm, ERI with 10mm (in pending merger with CZR, could have a lot of overlap), FanDuel with 8.5mm
Is there a concern for increased marketing costs to increase user base? Let’s look at a case study of NJ, the first state to open both mobile & retail sports betting:
FanDuel + DraftKings have held 80%+ of the OSB market share since 12/2018 which is estimated to be driven by the conversion opportunity from DFS that is unique to both companies 
On the flipside, a case study to examine going forward is how DKNG can get OSB customers in a State that does not allow DFS. Nevada. Home to Las fucking Vegas. Prior to NV pushing FanDuel/DKNG out (highly likely due to casino lobbying), NV was a top-15 State in terms of revenue for them. NV is home to the fattest sports book in the US, & recently the gaming commission started to parse the data on sportsbook wagers done online vs. in-person, & it came out to roughly 50/50. It will be interesting to see how they try to capture market share in a state with no DFS
Long-term EBITDA margin target of 35% requires huge growth in MUPs
Based on their estimated '22 cost structure: Holding ARPU of ~$46, MUPs will have to be ~5.2mm, a 7x increase from current to achieve a EBITDA margin of 35%
A focus on future earnings will be management's ability to shift to a more fixed-cost structure which would effectively lower the MUP requirement for profitability
Things to look for when going Long - Progress of additional States legalizing sports betting – specifically, States with DFS already legalized - Cost structure evolving to a more fixed mix vs. the mostly variable mix currently as this will be the forward figure that determines profitability - Increasing User Base (Curr.: 12mm) -> Monetized Base (Curr.: 4mm) -> MUP (1Q’20: 0.7mm)
Management seems to be focused more on the first step, but one thing to note is that the 33% monetization rate is very high when compared to something like League of Legends which isn’t entirely comparable but in 2013 had a ~4% monetization rate . This, combined with the below implies that this conversion rate may be the ceiling for now
As a side note, ~6 years ago FanDuel had ~300k monetized on an ~800k user base for a monetization rate of ~37% 
Share Price Target Given the cost structure of the company, I’m going to base the price targets around Enterprise Value / Revenues (driven by MUPs & ARPUs).
MUP sensitivity of 5mm - 6mm
ARPU sensitivity from $41 - $47 for an average of $44, just a $3 increase from current of $41.
Share Price targets based on 2.0x - 4.5x EV / Sales.
Note: Flutter Entertainment (FanDuel ParentCo) trades at ~3.6x EV/Sales
Bear Case MUP: 5mm -> $20.32 - $45.73 Base Case MUP: 5.5mm -> $22.27 - $50.10 Bull Case MUP: 6mm -> $24.21 - $54.47 These MUPs imply a monetized customer base of 28mm – 33mm. At the high-end, this implies that DKNG monetized customer base will equal MGM’s current total user base. At yesterday’s close of $43.70, DKNG is trading at 3.5x – 4.5x forward Revenues on an expected >5,000 MUPs. Share Price drivers / considerations: - Continued multiple expansion
Consideration: A 1x premium to FanDuel's 3.6x, implies a ~15% upside to current. They're bigger than FanDuel, do they deserve the premium?
- MUP Growth exceeding beyond targets
Consideration: Stock currently implies that they should on average be growing at 40% QoQ – during 2018 they had on average +30% growth QoQ in MUPs, marking their best year
Management Team Jason Robins, 39 – Co-Founder & CEO. Duke BA, started DraftKings from day 1 in 2011. The 2 other buddies he started the Company with are still at DKNG. Dude navigated the Company through the scandal that rocked them in ’15 & ’16, and was the trailblazer in getting DFS labeled as a non-gambling product that enabled it to open in States without a gaming designation. This shit is the stuff that gets people in history books. His accomplishments make him seem like a very competent guy. Has 3 kids now, and only ~3% economic ownership in DKNG but has 90% of the voting power through his Class B share ownership. Also he actively participates in venture investments, sitting on 10 boards. His comp plan performance bonus target is pretty murky, but main drivers are EPS growth, revenue growth, then a bunch of margin & return metrics, along with share price returns. Overall, very open-ended & it’s safe to say as long as shit doesn’t hit the fan, he will be eligible for his max payouts year over year. I’m assuming the lawyers tried to encompass everything possible for maximum flexibility to justify him earning his max comp as long as DKNG is still around. Since he’s got voting control of 90%, I’ll end the specific-person overview here, but want to note that they have a very bloated C-suite. 12 folks at DKNG, 8 folks at SBTech, all with C-suite designations. Whereas their main competitor FanDuel, has 3 guys with a C-suite designations & 1 EVP, but is a sub under a larger ParentCo that has its own management team of ~5 guys. Looking through glassdoor you can see the biggest complaint among employees giving bad reviews is based on management, all of the specific issues they point out IMO are a result of a top-heavy company. Seems like a good starting point to optimize their cost structure, but given Robins' history of sticking this entire thing through with his co-founders since '11 stuff like this doesn't seem to be a part of his playbook. They’re a public company now though, so it’s going to be interesting to see going forward. TL;DR: If I were to initiate a position in DKNG, the stock would have to fall to the $35-$37 range for me to be a buyer of the stock, and based on this rough intro analysis I'll be considering Put options if it breaches $50. I would not touch Calls at this level.  Susquehanna Research – U.S. Online Gambling 6/27/19  https://rotogrinders.com/articles/bang-for-your-buck-a-look-at-dfs-industry-rake-153302  https://draftkings.gcs-web.com/static-files/8f3a5c5a-7228-45bf-aab2-63604111c48d  Goldman Sachs Research – DKNG Initiation 5/19/20 https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/223071/Dont_monetize_like_League_of_Legends_consultant_says.php  https://rotogrinders.com/threads/how-many-people-actually-play-dfs-regularly-252044
Despite Overwhelming Evidence that Mobile Sports Betting is the Future, States Continue to Pass Legislation Without Option
19 states have passed sports betting legislation (14 are live). By the end of 2020, Jake Williams, VP of Legal and Regulatory Affairs, Sportradar U.S. (the leading data supplier in the domestic betting market), expects that figure to climb into “the mid-twenties.” Surprisingly, at least to those who are aware that +/- 80% of all sports betting takes place on mobile devices, only +/- 68% of the states that have passed legislation to date included online or mobile wagering in the bill. Those who failed to do so are leaving revenues on the table. Howie Long-Short: One reason that such a large percentage of states are passing legislation without an online or mobile component is in the U.S. “gaming [licenses] are tied to physical locations." The overwhelming desire to “bring people into those facilities” has resulted in several states deciding they would only permit sportsbooks within brick and mortar properties. “The industry has quickly learned [a casino] isn’t going to bring that many more people to the facility [with the presence of a sportsbook].” Instead, Williams says local gaming operators should consider lobbying “to introduce new online and mobile products, [which would allow them to] generate revenues and then try to drive those new customers to a physical location. The audience who bets online or through a mobile app isn’t necessarily interested in going to a casino or retail sportsbook. [Operators] can capture far more of the market [if they have an online and mobile options available].” ADVERTISEMENTSCROLL TO CONTINUE READING It’s important to note that even in states with online and mobile sports betting “there is a spectrum of how successful the roll-out can or will be.” States that fail to support an open and competitive marketplace, limit the locations where mobile bets can be placed (see: geo-fencing) or require in-person registration are going to generate less revenue. New Jersey - which has 20+ skins and is generating +/- 88% of its sports betting revenues through mobile applications - is considered the model to follow. The one mistake New Jersey made was preventing bettors from wagering on collegiate teams located in the state. Williams says “it’s not better from an integrity perspective, it just forces those who want to bet on Seton Hall or Rutgers to drive to PA, bet with their local bookie or bet off-shore.” The rigidness of the legislation prevents state regulators from correcting the wrong. As the U.S. sports betting industry matures, in-play betting will become more prominent. With that transition will come an increase in “transaction volume” and in the amounts wagered. Williams expects - based on international trends and the direction the world is heading - that “80% of all-bets will [eventually] be in-play.” How soon remains to be seen (though, a decade seems reasonable), with most companies currently focused on offering core products that their customers are familiar with. That's because “some of the platforms that the online or mobile products were built on were developed many years ago. They weren’t designed to handle the dynamic and time sensitive requirements of the U.S. market in 2020, which for a large operator means launching multiple sportsbooks in multiple states, keeping the product on the cutting edge of innovation (because there is stiff competition) and doing it without knowing [what is coming down the pike].” Software and bandwidth concerns aside, Williams believes that the industry needs to invest in educating the public that in-play betting is a possibility for it to become more prominent. To that end, Sportradar is meeting with lawmakers and regulators across the country to ensure that they understand the entire anatomy of sports betting, including the potential of in-play (along with how data is used and integrity monitoring). “Even though there has been sports betting in Nevada for a while, most people don’t fully understand that they can bet during the game. Once that becomes part of the culture, in-game betting will take off and that is when teams and leagues will begin to achieve their goals related to driving engagement.” SBJ recently noted that online sports betting has yet to impact the NFL's television ratings. Fan Marino: If sports betting is operational in 25+ states come early 2021, Williams indicated that last Sunday's Super Bowl would be the last without national commercials for gaming operators. “You are going to be hard pressed to find a CMO [of a multi-state operator] who wouldn’t be very interested in [a Super Bowl commercial]. Certainly there are companies with big budgets, that want to make some form of a splash. I don’t think it is crazy to think it could occur [next year].” Editor Note: Please note that joining our community (si.com/johnwallstreet) will entitle you to receive our free daily email newsletter.
TL;DR:CLV can be a useful alternative measurement for performance, but is ultimately a flawed metric Purpose of CLV The primary purpose of CLV is an alternative measurement of performance. The theory is that if you’re getting enough CLV to cover the vig, you should be a winner in the long term. Many “pros” claim that it's best to benchmark performance based on CLV rather than actual outcomes. Sportsbooks can also use it as a measurement to assess whether a sports bettor is a “sharp” or a “square”, sometimes limiting or even outright banning bettors who consistently beat CLV. This assertion relies heavily on the efficient market hypothesis. Efficient Market Hypothesis Without giving you a financial theory history lesson, very simply the efficient market hypothesis (EMH) states that the price of an asset reflects all known information and that consistent alpha generation is impossible. Sports betting translation: the only way to bet profitably is to generate CLV and it’s impossible to generate +EV if you only bet right before the game starts. If you bet the Closing Line you should expect to lose an amount equal to the vig in the long-term. Quite simply – this is bullshit. Various forms of EMH may apply to liquid financial markets, but I’m going to make the argument that while CLV is useful, the Closing Line is far from efficient. Is the Market Efficient? Market efficiency is often characterized as having the following attributes: 1.Immediate absorption of new information 2.Important information is freely available to all participants 3.A large number of rational, profit maximizing market participants Let’s review these assertions one-by-one. 1.Immediate Absorption of New Information In an efficient market, the only thing that moves the price of an asset is new information. If this were true, we should be able to identify long periods of static lines, as no new information has been revealed. Let’s check out a recent example of how reactive the markets are to new information: On January 11, 2020 the OKC Thunder hosted the LA Lakers. Around 1:30pm ET, news broke that LeBron would miss the game. Naturally, that injury announcement had a large impact on the odds for both teams. A time series plot of the Thunder’s breakeven win probability is shown below. Time Series of an OKC LAL game win probability The lines almost immediately improved the Thunder’s breakeven win % from ~50% to ~65%. Without giving a chance for the lines to reach a new equilibrium, another bombshell was dropped at 1:54pm ET: Anthony Davis was questionable. The lines continued to move in the Thunder’s direction for the next hour or so before seemingly reaching an equilibrium a little after 3pm ET. When it was finally announced that AD was downgraded to Out around 45 minutes before tip, the line began to further trend toward OKC. So how should we judge these movements? Did the market immediately factor in new information? Although the market reacted fairly well, there was still some opportunity to get a bet in before the market reached a new equilibrium, particularly with regard to the AD news. I would say that the market may not have fully reacted immediately, but this isn’t enough evidence to disprove the EMH. We are 0 for 1. 2.Important Information is Freely Available to All Participants Does everyone have access to the same information? Certainly not everyone would agree with me, but I generally believe that most sports information is freely available these days. The barrier to information is lower than it’s ever been. People use information in different ways, to give them certain edges, but I don’t think that information asymmetry is a reason to disprove EMH. We are now 0 for 2... 3.A Large Number of Rational, Profit Maximizing Market Participants I think we can all agree that the drunk guy parlaying the Gatorade color and coin flip at the Super Bowl might not be rational or profit maximizing. And judging by a few Reddit comments there are plenty of sports bettors who aren’t strictly profit maximizers (please if this is any of you, please don't feel personally attacked): “I'm not going to be dealing with 7 different bookies just to raise my ROI by .1 or .5 or even 1%.” “I tend to gamble more when I’m bored” “I was drunk and wanted to bet so I threw down 5 units on an Australian women's basketball game on a blind tip from the Nitrogen chat room.” The vast majority of sports bettors aren’t profit maximizers, but utility maximizers. Sports betting offers a form of exhilaration and entertainment that can’t be found in other places. A lot of that excitement manifests itself in poor-EV-yet-thrilling wagers (such as parlays, teasers and futures) that sportsbooks happily offer you. Just how much are non-profit maximizing behaviors costing sports bettors? To answer that, let’s take a peak at the Nevada’s annual sports betting report. In 2019, sportsbooks in Nevada took $5.3 billion in wagers and held $329 million, representing a hold of 6.2%. Previously we discussed how standard -110 odds gave sportsbooks a hold of 4.5%, which we could chisel away at pretty easily with some basic line shopping. Thus, if market participants we’re truly profit maximizers, we’d expect a hold significantly less than 6.2%. OK – so finally we have some evidence that the EMH might not hold. Let’s see if we can test it with some data. TestingWeak Form Efficiency The three forms of market efficiency are Strong Form, Semi-Strong Form, and Weak Form. The Strong Form assumes that all information (private and public) is baked into the market. The Semi-Strong Form assumes that all public information is baked into the market price of an asset. The Weak Form states that historical prices cannot be used to predict future prices. If we can prove that the weakest form of the EMH can be disproved, we can disregard the EMH. Straight from Morningstar: “The weak form of EMH assumes that current stock prices fully reflect all currently available security market information. It contends that past price and volume data have no relationship with the future direction of security prices. It concludes that excess returns cannot be achieved using technical analysis.” MLB Moneyline Movements Let’s go ahead and use MLB ML data from the 2015-2018 seasons to see if we can predict the direction of the closing line, and therefore generate theoretical value (CLV) by beating the closing line. We gathered the Closing Line as well as the line 2-hours to close (T-2) to see if we can recognize any patterns. We can then test the statistical significance of those patterns to give us a sense of whether they have any merit. The traditional school of thought is that if you’re betting favorites, it’s best to bet them early. If a dog, wait until close to gametime. Does this hold merit? The first thing we can do is test the average deviation of prices from a 50/50 probability. Closing Lines had an average deviation of 44 cents, while T-2 had an average deviation of 42 cents over 9,813 games in our sample. If we look at the distribution, we see that there are more games with an average deviation greater of 100 or more at close than at T-2. Average Deviation Yes, the curves look similar. But if we focus on the difference between the two, we can identify a more significant pattern. Difference Between Close and T-2 What the above shows is that there are more “close” games at T-2 and more “mismatches” at Close. Huh? How can that be? Answer: lines must move toward the favorite from T-2 to Close. Let’s dive a little further and focus on games that have a significant favorite. We pulled out games that have an underdog of +180 or greater at T-2. In total we had 1,208 games. Of those 1,208 games, 657 (54%) had line movement toward the favorite, 404 (33%) had line movement toward the underdog, and 147(12%) did not have any movement. The average movement of the favorite was -3.4 cents, from -224.0 to -227.2. Visually, we can look at the distributions of movement below. Line Movement Distribution Clearly, the data suggests a movement toward the favorites in the last two hours, suggesting that we can capture positive CLV simply by betting favorites 2 hours prior to first pitch. This “strategy” violates weak form EMH, which states that past prices have no relationship with future price movements. If this isn’t enough evidence to disregard the EMH, I pose you this: are the MLB markets systemically mispricing favorites two hours prior to first pitch, only to correct this mispricing from T-2 to Close? I find it hard to believe. Optimizing for CLV vs Optimizing for Profit The evidence above provided a theoretically argument why the EHM can be largely disregarded and therefore CLV should not be the target that bettors are optimizing for. A more practical reason why CLV should not be the target: because CLV is fairly simple to measure, it is the primary way that sportsbooks designate who is sharp and who is square. With so many sportsbooks practicing the strategy of limiting or banning sharp bettors, it’s probably not ideal to optimize for a strategy that 1) rests heavily on the assumption of an efficient market and 2) firmly puts you on the radar of sportsbooks.  This is the line available two-hours prior to first pitch.
My chips were stolen off the table I was playing at (A warning to all live cash game poker players)
I wanted to share an experience I had last year as a warning to other live poker players. I was playing in a very well known poker room at a Las Vegas strip casino when the 10/20 limit game I had been playing for the last few hours broke. Since it was a game that rarely got going, it was the only table at that limit and I asked to move to a 1/2 NL game. I racked up, moved to a new table and called a chip runner to color up four hundred dollars. I pocketed the four black chips and left about $190 in white and red chips in play. After a few hands, I decided it would be a good time to hit the sportsbook and put some action on an upcoming UFC fight that evening. I got up from the table and made my way to the sportsbook. A smoke, a bathroom break and a couple of sports bets later, I made my way back to the poker room. I got back to my table and as I approached, I noticed a guy was sitting in my seat (seat 6). Of course, at first I figured I had gone to the wrong table but recognized the guy that was sitting in seat 7 was the same guy from before (he also moved from the broken 10/20 game). I told the guy he was sitting in my seat and he said that he was called for the game about 10 minutes prior and the seat was empty when he got there. The new dealer confirmed that when he got to the table, the seat was empty and there was no chips there. I was gone about 30 minutes and figured the floor picked up my chips (a common practice when somebody misses multiple blinds and there is a waiting list for the game). I made my way to the podium and asked the girl where I needed to go to retrieve the chips that got picked up. She called the floor over and the floor told me I didn't get picked up. We made our way back to the table and I showed him where I was sitting at. The dealer at the table when I left was dealing at a different table and she confirmed that my chips were there when she left the table. I ask the other players at the table what happened to my chips and get this... Nobody saw what happened. Since I only played a couple hands before leaving (dealt cards but never posted a blind or entered a pot) most didn't remember me being at the table. The guy in seat 7 was three sheets to the wind and swears he never saw my chips leave. The floor walks me back to the front of the room and gets on the phone with surveillance. About 30 minutes pass and a woman walks out and introduces herself as the supervisor on duty. She tells me that there is nothing she can do and offers me a $50 voucher for a restaurant on the property. I explain that I had at least $180 on the table and I wanted all my money. She told me that it is the player's responsibility to protect their chips at all time and it is not the casino's responsibility to watch my chips when I am away from the table. I demanded an explanation of what happened. I told her that if my chips were stolen, I wanted to call the cops and report it. After going around and around for over 30 minutes, she finally told me that they couldn't tell me what happened to my chips as surveillance didn't have a working camera on that table. By this time, I was late to meet with my friends for dinner and the UfC fight, so I reluctantly took the voucher and left. I spoke to a couple of my poker playing friends in the days that followed and I was urged to contact the police as well as the Nevada Gaming Commission. As a last ditch effort, I contacted the casino, found out who the poker room manager was and sent an email detailing the fiasco. I threatened to file a report with the NGC and go public with my story and share my experience with the poker community through twitter, 2+2, pocketfives, Reddit, etc. The next day, I received a reply and was invited back to the poker room for a resolution. When I arrived, I didn't know what to expect (I half expected to be arrested for harassing the supervisor a few nights prior). To my surprise, the manager welcomed me with a check for $180 when I arrived. She walked me to the cage where they cashed the check for me and the manager apologized not only for the incident but how it was handled by the staff. I purposely left out the name of the casino because I don't feel they should be punished or recognized for how they handled everything. I never did find out what happened to my chips (my guess is the guy in seat 5 took them when he racked up and left the table). I guess the moral of the story is be very careful when you get up from a table with chips still on the felt. From the way it was originally handled, my guess is that the casino really has no legal responsibility for your chips if you leave them at the table and go to the restroom. TL;DR: in a live poker game, got up from the table to take a break, came back, chips were gone, casino originally told me I'm screwed, then after raising hell and writing to the poker room manager, gave me all my money back. *EDIT: Spelling errors
Nevada locals no longer have to drive to the casino to wager on a game. You’ll just need to be inside Nevada state lines. Heck, you can place a wager from your seat in the sportsbook if you’re comfortable and don’t want to walk to the counter to place a wager. The majority of sports wagering app users live in Nevada. Every sportsbook is free to determine its own betting limits and Bovada Sports is no exception. The sportsbook has set generous maximum bets per event, with the numbers varying based on interest and individual games. However, there is a good baseline you can use to compare and see what to expect. Under Nevada online sports betting law, it is possible to bet via sports betting mobile applications. However, the registration must be completed in person in one of the casinos partnered with that particular sportsbook you want to register at. Nevada was long the king sports betting in the United States, but it was a title pretty much won by default. This page lists the online sportsbooks available for bettors in Sin City. The sportsbook is an independent one. It is on the Las Vegas Strip. Treasure Island’s sports betting app is known for its lower limits. Nevada sports betting FAQ How old do you have to be to use a Nevada sports app? You must be 21 years of age to create an account with a Nevada sportsbook. What companies offer a Nevada sports betting app?
Vegas Life: Best Las Vegas Sportsbooks (Top Places to Bet Sports in Vegas)
DDC Video 27 The two best sports books in Las Vegas What these sports books have to offer Why in-game betting is a great tool to have access to These are some of the things discussed in this ... How To Bet On Sports like A Pro Episode 2 - Sportsbook 'Limits' In Games. How the leagues control games and work with the sports books to set betting limits. Sports Betting 101 with Steve Stevens - Money Management - Duration: 5:26. VIP Sports Las Vegas 44,018 views. 5:26. Money Talks - Sports Handicapping Reality TV Show - The Pilot - Duration: 43 ... During a trip to the US I visited Carson City, the capital city of Nevada where US legislation for that state is enacted. It was part of my continuing journey to see how gambling and betting, or ... Nov 9 2019 Las Vegas Sports Betting Vlog - Duration: 14:51. Sports Betting Truth 6,166 views. 14:51. One Week in Las Vegas with a Sports Bettor: Las Vegas Vlog Day 3 - Duration: 12:43.