Where is the libertarian critique of Justin Wolfers Op-Ed on point-shaving betting in the New York Times?

No Gravatar

Nowhere.

Not on Freakonomics.

Not on Marginal Revolution.

Not on Caveat Bettor.

Nobody asked the good questions: Why is it that point-shaving betting is so popular? Could it be that bettors like point-shaving betting very much for good reasons? And should governments and/or sports authorities forbid a popular form of betting on the ground that a small group of people are cheaters? Is there a way to catch those cheaters without clamping down on the whole bunch of point-shaving bettors (who are honest people, for the most part)?

I have the feeling that Prawf Koleman Strumpf would have had a more libertarian approach to this point-shaving betting issue. And shouldn&#8217-t we look more closely at the United Kingdom, where BetFair cooperates with the sports bodies and the police to trace the cheaters?

Previous: Justin Wolfers wants America’s sports bodies to allow sports betting so as to outlaw the quirky bets that induce corruption. + Point Shaving in the NBA: An Economic Analysis of the NBA’s Point Spread Betting Market

UPDATE: Michael Giberson&#8230-

Practical considerations are raised by the proposal to outlaw certain types of bets. Given that, in the U.S., sports gambling is already prohibited in all but a few places, and nonetheless illegal gambling is thriving. One wonders how to induce parties already willing to gamble illegally to only illegally gamble on governmentally-approved forms of bets.

Wolfers answer seems to be that expanding legal sports gamblings on outcomes only would allow legal operators to out-compete illegal operators. But the competitiveness of legal operators will depend in part on their ability to offer attractive betting opportunities, and that ability would be limited under his proposal.

Nonetheless, legalization of sports gambling does carry with it the advantages of relative transparency, which can aid in the detection gambling-based manipulation. [*]

These practical considerations don’t raise to the level of the principled libertarian critique that Chris is in search of, but they do tend to point toward the same result: broader legalization of gambling conducted under a regime of legally enforceable property rights.

[*] Just a related note. In the U.K., the (legal) bookmakers have been reluctant to to give the names of cheaters to the Police, whereas the (legal) BetFair has always been prompt to fight sports corruption.

UPDATE #2: Niall O&#8217-Connor&#8230-

[*] Just a related note. In the U.K., the (legal) bookmakers have been reluctant to to give the names of cheaters to the Police, whereas the (legal) BetFair has always been prompt to fight sports corruption.

This is indeed true- with one significant caveat. It is my belief that most of the major bookmakers and the spread betting companies use Betfair to hedge. They are, thus in theory masking the identity of their clients, when they use Betfair. As you rightly say, they have in the past been reluctant to expose these clients to the light. Should Betfair therefore accept hedging money from these organisations, which, by its own admission, do not have the appropriate systems in place&#8230-

3 thoughts on “Where is the libertarian critique of Justin Wolfers Op-Ed on point-shaving betting in the New York Times?

  1. Michael Giberson said:

    Practical considerations are raised by the proposal to outlaw certain types of bets. Given that, in the U.S., sports gambling is already prohibited in all but a few places, and nonetheless illegal gambling is thriving. One wonders how to induce parties already willing to gamble illegally to only illegally gamble on governmentally-approved forms of bets.

    Wolfers answer seems to be that expanding legal sports gamblings on outcomes only would allow legal operators to out-compete illegal operators. But the competitiveness of legal operators will depend in part on their ability to offer attractive betting opportunities, and that ability would be limited under his proposal.

    Nonetheless, legalization of sports gambling does carry with it the advantages of relative transparency, which can aid in the detection gambling-based manipulation.

    These practical considerations don’t raise to the level of the principled libertarian critique that Chris is in search of, but they do tend to point toward the same result: broader legalization of gambling conducted under a regime of legally enforceable property rights.

  2. Niall O'Connor said:

    [*] Just a related note. In the U.K., the (legal) bookmakers have been reluctant to to give the names of cheaters to the Police, whereas the (legal) BetFair has always been prompt to fight sports corruption.

    This is indeed true; with one significant caveat. It is my belief that most of the major bookmakers and the spread betting companies use Betfair to hedge. They are, thus in theory masking the identity of their clients, when they use Betfair.

    As you rightly say, they have in the past been reluctant to expose these clients to the light.

    Should Betfair therefore accept hedging money from these organisations, which, by its own admission, do not have the appropriate systems in place…..

  3. Chris. F. Masse said:

    QUOTE

    This is why Wolfers suggests, as a way to defeat any crooked influence of gamblers, banning betting on things that aren’t important to the game, while allowing even more betting on things that are meaningful like which team will win.

    UNQUOTE

    http://myespn.go.com/blogs/tru…..aving.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *