And 2018 is when sports betting was legalized across the country for states to implement, but not at the national level.

What has happened in that time frame from your perspective?

I'm going to start with you, Steve.

Since 2018, what have you noticed?

I've noticed that the major players have looked to increase their house advantage.

And so the rise of the same game parlay, which is in Nevada, we always just we bet on sides and totals.

We bet on the game.

We put $100 on it.

We got three hours of entertainment.

And even if we were a drunk baby, just randomly picking some some side, winning 5050, it cost us $4.54 The point is, is that no one was ever going to lose a lot of money, just even betting $100 a game.

But now with these same game parlays, the house edge goes up, up, up to 10%, 20%, 30%.

The more teams you play.

And there's no disclosure whatsoever.

And I would love to see almost like a cigaret package.

Like like when you're playing a game, I like, like in the keno room and on slot machines and say you're playing a game that has over a 10% theoretical hole for the house to protect the consumer.

Now, I know most people could they could research it and learn that themselves, but why not have that in front of them to like, remind them, hey, this is a huge house edge game, and if you're churning and you keep betting all these, we talk about these young youth and really is mortgaging their future, they're going to lose all their money rapidly rather than slowly gambling in other ways.

quick anecdote.

In 2002, I worked for the mayor and the mayor, called, the commissioner of the NFL and said, why won't you run our Las Vegas spot?

They would not run a spot from Las Vegas in 2002.

And now we have Al Michaels telling us what the spread is.

And so for me, I feel like this acceptance of gambling, it's like it's just so accepted now and it's it's so easy.

And the other night, my daughter and I are watching the UFC fight and they had the prediction market right there on the screen and they're just showing it.

And it's all so accepted and and and normalized.

And so there is not any protection surrounding that.

There is no I mean we have our one 800 gambler on some of these spots at the very end and, you know, two point font.

But the fact of the matter is we just really need to educate people more.

And I think that's that's the biggest issue is that it's become so prevalent, sports gambling and, sports betting.

And the fact of the matter is we just really don't have enough protection surrounding it and enough awareness.

Who's responsible for that education?

Who pays for it?

Should that be the federal government?

Should that be states?

Should that be the gaming companies themselves?

Who wants to start Steve Davis excited?

It has to be the federal government in the states, because there's an inherent conflict of interest.

The, the providers of the gaming, they want people to be playing the high, house edge games they don't want.

And this is documented the movie owning Mahoney, where they're just like one of their the casino employees tries to educate them and they're like, he gets fired, you know, what are you doing?

You know, these are our our best customers.

So I really think either the states or federal, I don't I don't know which need to mandate the rules such that the patrons are educated and if they need help, that they get help.

We are state funded.

Partially so.

But we also I fundraise with industry and we have some great industry partners because there are certain, people in the industry that really do care, that want to try to make sure that, you know, they don't want to take the mortgage off of a player.

So there are certain properties here in Nevada that really go above and beyond when it comes to that.

But the state does fund it.

And so I think it's important for us to really get a little bit more, support there because, we can only go as far as we can go.

So we're the biggest center in the state, but we, you know, we hit our dollars every year, but we're not exceeding it because we can't get enough people in because we're a fee for service type of product.

So that's how the state funds us.

So for me, we have to get more more clients and we have to get more people to get help.

We're helping less than 1% of our state.

And 20 years ago they did a prevalence study, and they said that 6% of our state had a problem, and that was before the phones.

I was before everything.

So imagine we're helping less than 1%.

So we really need, you know, that kind of ad campaign.

This is your brain.

This is your brain on drugs kind of ad campaign out there that really tells people, hey, gambling is a real issue.

And and there is help.

And guess what?

It's free.

So I think it's on the States.

Really.

I know that there was some federal legislation out there that did not pass.

And of course, you know, everyone would love more money to put towards this.

And, you know, if the states can can grab some of that for us, you know, from a from a federal perspective, that's great.

But but it really needs to be, I think, monitored through the states and pushed through the states versus federal.

It definitely.

Let me ask you.

So I see all the time does if you have a problem gambling, what should you do.

But it's never defined.

And I was just querying on some websites how much is too much to spend on a hobby?

Because obviously you can be addicted to handbags or golf and things that you're spending.

And what popped up is you should have like a 10% hobby fund, like hobby and entertainment.

And I wonder if there's any way to like to quantify that to someone like, hey, like just on gambling alone, if you, if you're spending more than 5% of your income, I know the person that's making billions, that's different than they can do whatever they want.

But just for the average person, do you think like 5% would be like a general guideline?

Maybe you might have a problem if you go above that?

I think it's more than a number.

So I don't think it's a percentage.

For instance, on our website we have, you know, an assessment.

You can answer these 20 questions and hit that assessment like every, every coin collector spent, it spends time away from their family.

Every golfer is a has a golfing addiction.

They're spending time away from their families.

But are you gamble?

Are you leaving them I know, what are you leaving your kid?

You know, at the daycare until, you know, 6:00 when you're supposed to be golfing three times a day or.

Listen, I'm not I'm not into sports addiction, but I know a lot about gambling.

Yeah, but but for me, I do think that, you need to ask yourself those questions, and, you know, sure.

You're spending money on golf, too.

There's prop bets.

There's all kinds of stuff.

We actually have advertisements out at some of the golf courses here just to make sure, you know.

Is that right?

Yeah.

That tea wash, all that stuff.

But I really feel like, you know, for, for us, you need to look at your lifestyle and what kind of choices are you making.

And, you know, and then it even goes further.

Are you chasing your bets?

Are you, you know, trying to make up for the losses?

Are you when you're with your family or.

I mean, I would venture to say that unless you have a severe problem when you're with your family, as a as an avid golfer, you're probably enjoying your family, right?

So you're not hiding how much you're spending your Big Bertha, right?

Right?

Right, right right, right.

So yeah, that's true, but but I'm just saying, like, you know, it's that sort of stuff.

You're with your family, you're thinking about your losses.

You're thinking about the lies you've told.

You're thinking about the damage that you can cause.

And so it's just, you know, it's it's just so for game that you can make money on.

Yes.

And recoup your losses.

So you think federal intervention is necessary.

You would like more money from the states.

No state is fine.

I'm really not qualified.

Okay, okay.

But not I guess your point is, you do not think that gaming companies should be responsible for this.

I think it's a terrible conflict of interest, because if you take your best customers and educate them, they probably will gamble less.

And now you're doing disservice to your shareholders, your own bottom line.

Okay, let's talk about AI in betting.

Oh, I was going to answer the other question.

Well go ahead.

That wonderful question.

So I think you've asked two questions.

The who's responsible question and who pays.

so when we think about who's responsible, I think that everybody is every stakeholder who's in this place has some responsibility to think about what this means.

So, for example, personal responsibility, if I'm going to participate in any activity, in some ways, the onus is on me to know what it is I am about to do.

If I am a state government or a federal government, and I'm going to legalize a an industry, the onus is then on the government to think about what it means to have that sort of industry present licensed, doing business in their jurisdiction.

And that's what it is they want to do in terms of tax moneys.

And then here we are with the pay who pays.

So then allocate that toward different resources, whether that's treatment providers like the treatment providers at the International Problem Gambling Center, whether that's the, prevention experts.

So maybe there's marketing campaigns or everything from pizzas to broader campaigns that might take place that help educate the population.

And then I think that gambling companies have an element of responsibility, too.

I think that Steve's point is quite valid.

I also think that it's really important that there is an element of understanding and responsibility taken.

This is the business that, you know, for such a long time, right, where Sin City, it's because we think about these sorts of things as sin businesses and so the negative externality to, you know, throw down with some economics terms to make myself sound clever, right.

The negative externalities that might come out of an activity like gambling, that's something that both the businesses and the governments have to think about.

And there's a balance to be struck.

The government wants a successful business.

It also wants to make sure it's protecting its population.

if I just may add quickly to that, for us, it's about $5,000 per individual.

When they come into our center.

That's about how much it costs total to rehabilitate.

Rehabilitate them to a point where we have a 44% success rate.

And one year after that first year, if you come back twice, you have 92% success rate, very, very positive.

Good stuff.

And that money is also coming from the industry because they are our tax base.

So we get our money from the general fund too.

So just to address that as well, do you think that if you had more money for marketing, there would be more people aware of your services and you would have more people that you would be serving?

I'm an advertising person.

I mean, I actually came from gaming advertising.

So I yes, I think that the advertising is, is huge, letting people know that it's okay, you're not weak.

The stigma that surrounds gambling addiction is also significant.

And people are very ashamed.

Right?

The I aspect I brought that up in connection to responsible gaming because these companies can monitor how much money someone is putting on to their app and see if it's maybe out of the norm and, and can detect kind of risky behavior.

What are your thoughts on their ability to monitor that activity?

I think there's a great onus on the operator to use AI for good AI as a tool.

It's not automatically identifying somebody who might be able to empty their wallet in the way that that will go with owning Mahoney here again, might be able to do, and it's not automatically going to identify what might be risky behavior.

So the tool has to be used in a purposeful and useful way, which can do both things.

It can offer personalized marketing opportunities for somebody who's seeking value like a professional gambler.

It also can, and frankly, should be used to identify what can be, potentially risky behavior.

This, by the way, is still a very difficult thing to do because it's not just identifying what might be risky behavior, it's also catching the person at the right time for an intervention.

And with that, I'll turn it over to Stephanie to talk more about what it means once you get to that point and what we need to be careful of, too.

And what we found is, of course, you want to add these protections, but the more protections you add, then you have an individual going, I'm just going to go to the black market where there zero protections so that, you know, it's a very delicate space to try to balance.

Okay.

You know, let's give them enough protections but not too much.

So maybe it is a it is a little dance.

And I think that, the responsible operators that are out there, I think that they're really trying to navigate that in a way so that they can help their customers, but also not be a burden.

Stephanie brings up a great point that I question for you.

So in an ideal world, I would have to taking my job.

I of all there.

But I go ahead as I do world.

I would have all the casinos have databases of their most of their players use players cards.

All right.

So boom, we can add up someone's loss for the year.

And then we square, we got their address and we can look at what.

But now they could be you know living way beyond or below or above their means.

But you can look at it and have a feel for what neighborhood they're living in and say, boy, these are our red flags.

These are the people we probably, you know, do have a problem.

Is that something that you have have looked at doing?

So it's too much Big Brother that you're looking over someone's shoulder or would that be more.

Well, I think one of the limitations of what you just described is that not every operator has a physical presence, like we have properties on the strip or downtown Boulder strip, etc.

A lot of the operators that we're discussing when it comes to these various products and subjects are digital.

And so while they may know generally where you live, it might not be a true reflection of what your available assets are.

Last topic prop bets.

The NCAA wants them to be banned because they say their athletes are getting harassed for not achieving whatever that prop that is, you know, rushing for more than 35 yards.

For example, what is the answer here in your opinion, Steve?

Well, there's there's two issues, one being the players being harassed and the other is the integrity of this, the sport.

I'm going to just to address the integrity of the sport.

I think 99% of people that that place very modest wagers.

So just put limits on these.

Don't let someone bet more than $200 at that point.

Players are not going to be involved with point fixing of their points when the professional bettors, the bad actors, can't get down anything significant.

So it's the United States of America.

I want to have as much freedoms as possible, but I recognize, let's not have these crazy situations where you're hearing about someone betting 450,000 on the first half game of a Southern Miss, you know, I mean, what are we doing?

So by setting those limits, you're going to eliminate the big, big bad actors, I guess.

Yes.

They're still going to get yelled at though, in the in the stadium.

Like, can't fix that, Brett.

What do you think I'll speak a little bit to the athlete abuse then.

This is a very big issue.

It's not something that's even limited to NCAA.

We're seeing this with sports across the gamut.

So it's not even just the biggest sports that we see.

We we've seen commentary from for example, sprinters who run in track and field in athletics.

And as we head toward the Olympics now, what might be happening across a very broad span of sport.

So these proposals, it's incredibly difficult.

While there's a lot of history in dealing with these sorts of issues from more mature markets.

So there's, for example, quite a lot of sports betting markets in Europe that are a lot more mature than eight years old.

For most of the United States, even, they still don't necessarily have some sort of ideal solution to figuring out how to completely end athlete, how to completely end sport integrity and breaches and fraud, sorts of issues.

So when it comes to something like banning prop bets, we just there isn't evidence that this will work.

There's also isn't evidence that it won't work.

And so the, the it's very difficult to put forward very prescriptive measures like this and say with certainty, yes, this is the solution we're looking for.

Stephanie, you get the last word.

Thank you.

If I may, I do think that, when we look, when we when we look at the prop bets, I agree 100% with two because when we're talking about college athletes, it's just they take it out.

I mean, we already have an ACL, which is already, I think, really changing the experience for, for for its players.

Yes.

It's changing.

It's changing the face of college athletics already.

And we have to remember these are still young individuals.

And so for me I just looking out for their mental health a also just for the the the nonsense of prop bets in in college sports.

It just it's something I'm not excited about.

But let the adults handle it.

Let's, let's let's flip it out of implications.

If you're an NBA player, you're making your $8 million a year versus that college kid that can't afford pizza on Saturday night.

If he doesn't have an NHL deal and he's at a lesser program.

Yep.

And is more susceptible to be, to be utilized and tried to.

Yeah.

Manipulated.

Okay.

Thank you all for joining Nevada Week.

And thank you for watching.