Unintended Consequences

The discussions around limiting sports bettors in Massachusetts and the federal SAFE Bet Act to rein in the industry's excesses are asking the wrong question.

The current discussions taking place across the country are bigger than their individual parts; they are challenges to the orthodoxy.

The discussion on limiting bettors in Massachusetts is challenging the current status quo, which is that sportsbooks should be able to restrict specific customers.

And then there is the SAFE Bet Act. Long ago, gambling regulation was decided to be a state’s rights issue. However, according to proponents of federal intervention, the states haven’t been able to curtail the industry's excesses.

As Richard Schuetz (not a supporter of federal intervention, but a critic nonetheless) recently put it:

“The latest news in the betting space is Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Rep. Paul Tonko’s effort to launch a federal sports betting bill. In case anyone is curious, this is happening because the sports betting industry is proving itself incapable of anything approaching self-discipline or self-regulation.”

So, is it any wonder the feds are stepping?

---

SPONSOR’S MESSAGE - Sporttrade was borne out of the belief that the golden age of sports betting has yet to come. Combining proprietary technology, thoughtful design, and capital markets expertise, our platform endeavors to modernize sports betting for a more equitable, responsible, and accessible future.

Sporttrade’s newest feature, The Tape, prints all trades made on the app in real-time.

---

Personally, I believe that the status quo should be constantly challenged. The industry is rapidly evolving, and regulations need to keep pace.

That said, I’m also a big believer in unintended consequences, which is why I have severe misgivings about state regulators stepping in when it comes to limiting bettors and the federal government stepping in to “rein in” sports betting advertising and protect consumers.

Especially when there is a far simpler way to achieve the desired outcomes.  

Principle Vs. Technique

When it comes to martial arts, I favor principle-based training over technique-based.

Martial artists who collect techniques or prearranged drills look impressive in choreographed routines in controlled environments. Repetitive practice of a technique with a compliant partner will do that for you. The flaws with this type of training don’t make themselves apparent until things are unscripted, and most people who train this way never go off-script.

Take a boxer who doesn’t spar and only goes to the gym and hits mitts in prearranged combinations. You’ll notice it immediately if their pad holder deviates from the practiced punch combos, adds some type of footwork, or, god forbid, engages in some free sparring, and someone starts throwing punches back at them.

A person can look like a stone-cold-killer when they hit the bag or mitts, but if they step in the ring to spar or fight, it’s a different story; they look less practiced. The distancing changes, and they look a little unbalanced. Don’t get me wrong, they’re vastly improved and better than most, but there is a missing piece, and it’s a critical piece.

If you approach training in a principles-based way, it doesn’t matter when someone goes off-script. The principle remains the same. You're used to anticipating and reacting to the unexpected.

Here’s how a discussion of what to do in a self-defense scenario, say someone throwing an unprovoked punch, would sound between a principle and technique-based practitioner.

The technique-based person will ask all kinds of questions to find the correct technique from their Rolodex. For that, they will need to know how they were attacked. Was it a roundhouse punch? A straight punch? Left or right hand? Are they trained or untrained? Is my left or right foot forward? What about their feet? Are they taller or shorter than me? What is the distance between us? And so on.

The technique-based person doesn’t understand that whether they punch, grab, push, or kick, the principles are the same. When someone else initiates an attack, you need to weather the initial assault, gain the advantage, and keep the advantage until you can safely escape. That’s the principle-based approach to it. How you do it doesn’t matter.

While the principle-based person is protecting their head, crashing in, and neutralizing the attacker, the technique-based practitioner will still be trying to figure out the correct counter when the attacker throws punches five, six, and seven — The average in-shape person can throw about three punches per second. 

That’s what we see in the discussion on limiting bettors and the SAFE Bet Act. Well-intended people are trying to rectify these topics from a technique-based approach.

Instead of focusing on what should be done about limiting bettors or reining in the industry’s excesses, I propose we ask a different question: Why is it happening? Understanding the root causes can lead to more effective and sustainable solutions. Principle-based solutions.

This Is a Problem You Created