[xhkkffbf]

Gambling isn't the only form of entertainment meant to tickle the part of the brain that craves risk. Movies have car chases. Amusement parks have roller coasters.

And many jobs involve taking risks. Investment houses. Sales. etc. We reward those who take risks because society (often) benefits.

I find it much easier to argue against standard casino games because it's pretty easy to mathematically prove that the gambler will end up broke. With sports, it's a bit harder. As long as the vig is small enough, smart gamblers who know the teams can eke out a profit. If anything, sports gambling rewards study, thought, and focus, all things we should celebrate. THat doesn't mean I like. I would like to see it banned. But it means I have trouble arguing against it with any vigor.

[DoubleGlazing]

Being a savvy sports gambler will only get you banned though, the house always wins also applies to sports betting.

[alberto_balsam]

There exists big sports betting exchanges like Betfair, where there isn't a "house" and where they don't really have an incentive to limit big winners. I have friends who make consistent profit from these sites - though it must be said they do ramp up the commission

[erfgh]

How do you know that they make a consistent profit? You take their word for it? Gamblers are notorious liars and are also known to keep very poor record of their bets.

[xhkkffbf]

But that's not true. I know several guys who make a living at it. The casinos don't care because they make their vig on the action. The only losers are the folks on the other side of the bets.

It is true that the casinos will find a way to ban people who find an advantage in traditional games like blackjack (think card counting), but that's different. In sports gambling, the profit is extracted with the vig/spread.