Ahead Of The Curve

DraftKings credit card ban is a great example of getting out in front of changing policy trends, and something the industry could do on several issues.

Steve Ruddock

Sep 03, 2025

THE LEDE: Sometimes it’s smart to get out in front of things.
ROUNDUP: Amazon + sports betting; CA sweeps bill’s chances; DK’s Ghost Leg parlay promo; Kalshi self-certifies parlays; Quote of the Week
POINT-COUNTERPOINT: CNN’s sports betting segment.
VIEWS: Supporters and opponents cite the same California sports betting poll.
AROUND the WATERCOOLER: Elections —> Sports —> Casino Games?
STRAY THOUGHTS: I’d watch that movie again.

Sponsor’s Message: Increase Operator Margins with EDGE Boost Today!

EDGE Boost is the first dedicated bank account for bettors.

Increase Cash Access: On/Offline with $250k/day debit limits
No Integration or Costs: Compatible today with all operators via VISA debit rails
Incremental Non-Gaming Revenue: Up to 1% operator rebate on transactions
Lower Costs: Increase debit throughput to reduce costs against ACH/Wallets
Eliminate Chargebacks and Disputes
Eliminate Debit Declines
Built-in Responsible Gaming tools

To learn more, contact Matthew Cullen, Chief Strategy Officer, Matthew@edgemarkets.io

The Lede: DK Wisely Gets Out In Front Of Credit Card Bans

In a move that's both pragmatic and preemptive, DraftKings recently announced a nationwide ban on credit card deposits for its sportsbook and online casino platforms, effective August 25, 2025.

The decision to ban credit card transactions addresses multiple issues:

Chargebacks that eat into profits.
Navigating a patchwork of state regulations that carries the risk of hefty fines.
Legal regulatory shifts toward credit card bans as a responsible gambling norm.

Recall that in my podcast with Shawn Fluharty, NCLGS President and West Virginia House Minority Whip, we delved into the legislative imperative for such bans. “You need to have a legislative champion in each state,” Fluharty emphasized, highlighting how credit card prohibitions were baked into the NCLGS model legislation, not as a perfect or necessary policy, but to gain support from lawmakers.

So, DraftKings gets the best of both worlds: It can point to the policy being player-friendly, as credit card deposits are often treated as cash advances with exorbitant interest rates, and it aligns with a policy that many in the RG/PG sector advocate for, even if it’s not a needle-mover.

Another area where every sportsbook could help itself is by setting its gambling age to '21+' in every state.

Sportsbooks could keep the self-imposed restrictions momentum going by standardizing gambling ages at 21+ across all states, even where 18+ is allowed. Some operators already are 21+ across the board, but they don’t advertise it enough, in my opinion.

As I previously reported, sensing the winds were changing, sweepstakes sites like VGW and High 5 raised their minimum to 21 in February 2025, stating:

“‘We view ourselves as an RSG leader, and take this incredibly seriously, employing a team of industry experts, to ensure our games are enjoyed in a fun, healthy way,’ a VGW spokesperson told Sweepsy at the time of their decision in February. ‘Our goal is to exceed industry standards, and we offer our players a variety of readily available tools to aid in regulating their play, such as purchase limits, and options to permanently close their account, take a break, or set account self-exclusion.’”

Critics might call a credit card ban borderline useless when it comes to responsible gambling (and I largely agree), lumping them with superficial fixes like adding 21+ signage. But we need to appease the public and lawmakers.

By adopting 21+ universally, operators could preempt backlash and foster trust.

In an era of tightening regulations and stalled online expansion, these proactive steps aren't optional; they're essential.

And I’ll throw one out there for the land-based industry: Smoking bans.

Thanks for reading Straight to the Point! This post is public, so feel free to share it.

Roundup: Amazon + Sports Betting; CA Sweeps Bill; DK Promo; Kalshi Self-Certifies Parlays; Quote of the Week

Amazon is looking to hire for a sports betting role [Ryan Butler, X]: “Amazon AWS is hiring a Senior Betting and Gaming Advisory Consultant to ‘design, implement, and optimize cloud-based solutions tailored to the unique needs of online sports betting, iGaming, and casino gaming clients’ like FanDuel and DraftKings, per Amazon job posting.”

Some informed opinions on the likelihood of CA sweepstakes ban passing [Victor Rocha, X]: AB 831, a bill that would prohibit sweepstakes sites in California, has made it to the Senate floor, and according to in-the-know (but admittedly biased) source, Victor Rocha, it’s looking like it will pass: “My sources tell me we have more than enough votes in the Senate & the Assembly. I’m also told Gov. Newsom will sign it when it gets to his desk.”

DraftKings introduces Ghost Leg Promo ahead of NFL season [Gambling Harm]: DraftKings has announced an interesting new promotion, where it will “disappear” one leg of a losing parlay. Per Gambling Harm: “After opting in, bettors receive a Ghost Leg token to apply to an NFL parlay consisting of three or more legs, including same-game parlays. If exactly one leg loses, DraftKings removes or disappears the ‘ghosted’ leg and pays the ticket as a winner based on the remaining winning legs, rather than grading the whole parlay a loss.” As DraftKings said on X, “Last season, over 30 million parlays fell short by just one leg. Introducing Ghost Leg: if your Week 1 NFL Sunday parlay misses by a single leg, we’ll ghost it and pay you out in cash.”

Latest Kalshi self-certification looks like parlays [InGame]: We knew this was coming, and while this is potentially seismic news, I would stress the word potentially, as we still need to see how these are executed: “Kalshi might have just cleared the way to offer user-created parlays, self-certifying a new type of contract that includes multiple parts and payouts determined by multiplying the odds of each component of the bet. The prediction market submitted a new contract, which appears to be designed for bets on multiple outcomes, to its regulator, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), for self-certification Tuesday.”

Quote of the Week [Bold Mine]: “Nevada Rep. Dina Titus submitted her 100% gambling loss deduction proposal as an amendment to a "must pass" military spending bill, a potential maneuver to assure its passage. Worth noting: it is one of 1,013 separate amendments to the proposal, most of which won't be included.” ~ Ryan Butler

SPONSOR’S MESSAGE - Underdog: the most innovative company in sports gaming.

At Underdog we use our own tech stack to create the industry’s most popular games, designing products specifically for the American sports fan.

Join us as we build the future of sports gaming.

Visit: https://underdogfantasy.com/careers

Point-Counterpoint: CNN’s Sports Betting Coverage

I’ve been meaning to discuss last Sunday’s CNN segment on The Whole Story with Anderson Cooper, which aired on CNN, titled "Sports Betting: America's Big Gamble.”

I’m glad I took the extra time, because a few takes have disseminated that will help make the points that have been swirling around my head.

As Jill Dorson wrote for InGame, the CNN segment pulled at the heartstrings and cut to the core of the social harms that accompany gambling, “But that’s not the ‘whole story’ of sports betting and, while CNN may have succeeded in pushing forward an anti-gambling agenda, it did so by telling only one side of the story.”

“Of those who spoke meaningfully in Watt’s exposé, 14 were opposed to all forms of gambling, recovering addicts, or anti-legal gambling,” Dorson wrote. “Six were in some way involved in the industry and, of those, only one — the AGA’s Miller — was given a chance to argue the merits of legal gambling.”

The counterpoint to Dorson (and many, many others in the industry) was presented by Kim Lund (a two and soon-to-be three-time Straight to the Point podcast guest, Episodes #8 and #34):

“So what is the other side of the story? That the dark side of the story isn't as dark as it is being portrayed? As Alun Bowden is so good at reminding the industry of - of course these reports will be ugly when the industry's counter-narrative is that only half of all those bad things are true; $14B in social costs ain’t that much right, and 2.5m people suffering from severe gambling addiction is nothing compared to cancer.”

My own opinion on this is that virtually every mainstream exposé on gambling is going to have a negative slant; that’s the nature of the business (journalism and gambling). As Lund notes, once you start arguing the level of harm, you’ve already lost. You’re letting the opposition choose the field of battle and define the terms of victory and defeat.

As I wrote in February 2024:

“Whether it’s coverage by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, 60 Minutes, or ESPN, the industry is letting a narrative develop and then pushing back against it.
“That’s a bad strategy. There’s a saying in self-defense circles: whoever starts it usually finishes it.”

Or as I said about the cannibalization debates in a September 2024 column:

“I suggest we cease arguing against cannibalization. It’s a taboo word, and the minute it enters the discussion, the moment you start to defend against it, I would argue that you’ve lost the plot and the debate.”

A late add to the discussion happened yesterday, with SBC Americas’ Jessica Welman criticizing the one-sidedness of the segment, and Danny Funt (Washington Post reporter and author of the forthcoming book Everybody Loses: The Tumultuous Rise of American Sports Gambling) noting that the industry doesn’t always want to talk:

Full disclosure, Jessica is a two-time Straight to the Point podcast guest (episodes #10 and #57), and I spoke with Danny for his book earlier this year.

Views: One CA Sports Betting Poll; Two Perspectives

A new POLITICO-Citrin Center-Possibility Lab survey of more than 1,400 registered voters in California is being touted by both supporters and opponents of legalizing sports betting.

Here’s how GamblingHarm.com framed the poll results: California Sports Betting Poll 2025: Just 25% Want Legalization.
And here’s how LegalSportsReport.com framed it: California Sports Betting Has Majority Support: Poll.
And Sports Betting Dime: Poll: California Voters Ready for Legalized Online Sports Betting

So what did the survey actually find?

25% said it should be legal and is long overdue.
35% said it “might make sense” but needed more details.
21% said they’re “wary of legalization,”
19% said it would be a “huge mistake.”

Basically, 1-in-4 voters support legalizing sports betting, 1-in-5 are wholly opposed to it, and more than half fall into the ‘devil is in the details’ camp.

In 2022, California voters decisively rejected two competing sports betting referendums. The undecided camp broke entirely in one direction: Proposition 26, which would have legalized in-person sports betting at tribal casinos and licensed racetracks, failed with 33% in favor and 67% against, while Proposition 27, which aimed to legalize online and mobile sports betting statewide, failed even more resoundingly with 18% in favor and 82% against.

This outcome bears striking similarities to the current survey results, where a significant middle group remains persuadable (and seemingly far more open to in-person betting).

Furthermore, early 2022 polls indicated broader openness to legalization. A February 2022 Berkeley IGS survey found 45% of registered voters supported a constitutional amendment to allow sports betting, 33% opposed, and 22% undecided.

By September and October, as details of the propositions emerged and campaigning ramped up, support eroded: That same Berkeley IGS poll showed Prop 26 at 31% yes and 42% no, with Prop 27 at 27% yes and 53% no, mirroring the current split where strong support (25%) and opposition (19%) are low, leaving the decision up to the ambivalent middle (might make sense and wary)

And as we saw in 2022, when record-breaking ad spends (over $440 million total) and dueling negative campaigns created confusion and highlighted risks like gambling addiction and community harm, ultimately driving undecided and wary voters to "no."

Around the Watercooler

Social media conversations, rumors, and gossip.

Taking advantage of the lack of rules is precisely how you end up with extremely restrictive rules.

As Dustin Gouker responded:

I already foreshadowed this several months ago:

If we continue down the current path, where companies can reclassify products, we will reach a point where nothing is gambling.
Craps is a dice prediction market.
Roulette is a scientific experiment combining Newton’s Laws of Motion, friction, randomness, and probability.
Slot machines are interactive entertainment with variable rewards.

Stray Thoughts

I’ve recently discovered The Rewatchables Podcast (Bill Simmons), which dives into legendary movies, and has become my new go-to background noise while researching and working throughout the day. It also has me wondering how I’ve never heard of this before (uploads go back eight years), and considering I subscribe to the Cine-Files on YouTube, how it’s never come across my algorithm.

And by legendary, I mean movies like this:

For something a little closer to home for newsletter readers: