Four years ago, Colorado legalized online sports gambling.
The lucrative business and gobs of money that orbit it have changed the behavior of individuals and institutions alike. The University of Colorado, for instance, entered into an arrangement with a Denver-based gaming company and pitched its gambling product to students. (The New York Times reported the school was earning $30 per signup if someone used a CU promo code; the school later scrapped the deal.)
At least one local news organization in Colorado runs a “Best Bets” item each day, clearly aimed at those willing to risk their income on how professional athletes perform on an ice rink or basketball court.
Setting up an online sports gambling account on your phone and linking it to a financial institution has become remarkably quick and easy. And, since the U.S. Supreme Court allowed states to legalize sports betting in 2018, the ease with which to do it has come with consequences. One former problem gambler told The Colorado Sun he noticed new people showing up to 12-step meetings after Colorado’s gambling law went into effect. “The faces, almost all of them young men, tell stories that echo his own past,” reporter Kevin Simpson wrote: “A fun social activity with friends somehow veered off the rails.”
I’m not a sports fan, and until recently I’ve resisted the urge to get on this relatively new online gambling train — even when friends have texted screen shots of big wins.
But last weekend, I saw an editor of Colorado Politics promote on social media an initiative created by the news organization’s sister publication. “Every day the Denver Gazette sports staff will publish its best bets,” Luige del Puerto wrote.
Why would they do that? To encourage gambling? To offer those who already place bets the most likely odds with an assist from journalists who specialize on the beat? I reached out Tuesday to Denver Gazette Sports Editor Paul Klee in hopes of asking those questions and talking more about the philosophy and news judgment behind the daily “Best Bets” item. I
didn’t hear back, even after I followed up Wednesday and Thursday. His cell phone voicemail box was full yesterday; I sent some texts to no avail.
Because at my best I want to trust newspapers, and I feel like I should be able to reliably consult them for the information I need to be free and self-governing, I decided to take The Gazette’s advice. I was also simply curious. I wanted to see what would happen if I created an online sports gambling account and followed for a week what the paper’s sports writers said were the best bets of the day. I decided to risk $30 per bet.
I chose FanDuel, an easy-to-set-up service, and linked it to the business account I use for this newsletter. It looked like there was a sign-up bonus of $150 if I placed a $5 bet, but I chose not to tap into that for this experiment. I placed my first bet Saturday morning. Denver Gazette Deputy Sports Editor Chris Schmaedeke had forecast the Seattle Kraken to beat the Dallas Stars.
I had been texting a friend about my plan, and that evening he sent me a string of emojis letting me know Seattle had pulled it off. That meant I had won $9.60 on my $30 bet. (I was at an evening function at the time and hadn’t been paying attention to what was happening on the ice.) “This should give you nothing if not a new love for random sports/games,” he texted. “And money.”
I did not over-celebrate and so was not hungover Sunday when I cracked open my laptop and Googled “gazette best bets,” filtering it for the past 24 hours. There I found an item crystal-balling the Boston Celtics to beat the 76ers that afternoon — and also that the players would score fewer than 201 points. I slapped down $30 on each. Both happened, and I hauled in $98. (It was close. Really close. The players scored 200 points, just one shy of a loss.)
When I tweeted out the result, Vinny Benedetto, who covers the Nuggets for The Denver Gazette, replied. “New journalism model,” he said. “Give readers enough winners to cover the cost of an annual subscription in two days.”
I wondered if my streak would continue.
By Monday I was jonesing. I was up nearly $100. If this went on, I thought, I could double my bets and maybe make my car payment by hardly doing anything. If I multiplied it by 10, I thought, then stopped myself. You’re not a sports gambler. You don’t even understand what you’re doing.
After three days of betting, I saw my first $30 go poof, but I was still up $87.12
On Thursday, after five days placing $30 or $60 wagers that tracked The Denver Gazette’s advice for “Best Bets,” I was up around $30. That was the final day of this experiment, and I have to say I was unclear about how exactly should I act on the latest intel. Here was the language from “The Denver Gazette’s best picks” report for that day, written by Klee:
1. Lakers (+5.5, -110) at Nuggets: As well as Denver’s playing, Nuggets are 2-3 ATS in their past five.
2. Lakers at Nuggets (over 226.5 points): Make that three straight ‘Overs’ for Los Angeles.
That’s gobbledygook to me, which is probably an indication that I should not be risking money on sports gambling. But the point of this experiment was to let a trustworthy newspaper whose journalists specialize in the topic be my guide.
I asked my Twitter followers if they could help decipher what this meant. One person thought the Gazette was picking the Lakers to win; someone else thought The Gazette was picking the Nuggets. (Klee still had not replied to emails or a text. Then might have been a nice time to do so to clear it up. The game was in a few hours.)
I played around on the app, switching bets around, and somehow lost a few bucks into the void while doing so. (My fault, but I’m ignorant AF about this.) Finally, I thought I’d figured it out: If I followed the paper’s advice I’d win if the Lakers came within 5.5 points of the Nuggets and if the players scored more than 226.5 points. (It looks like I also wound up placing a separate bet on just the points, but whatever.)
I’d started the week by putting $200 in the account, and it was now down to $167.45 after I placed my final two bets of this experiment. If they held, I’d wind up making money for the week before this newsletter went out Friday. But those bets did not hold — in part because I’m so out of my league on this I mistakenly placed what’s called a “parlay” bet meaning both had to happen for me to win one bet. Bottom line: I lost $60 on that game.
So, what did I learn? I’m not so sure. I wound up losing $32.55 over six days, I know that. But I also didn’t follow every single bet The Gazette’s sports writers suggested — just one or two per day. If I had, perhaps the week would have panned out differently. I didn’t check the scores on the games where I didn’t bet. (The “Best Bets” sports writers track their individual records at the end of each item, and Klee’s as of Thursday before the game was “ATS: 102-84-3.” I hardly have a clue what that means. For what it’s worth, his deputy editor’s record as of Tuesday was “ATS: 135-125.”)
I also did not completely understand what I was doing — or sometimes what the sports writers were even suggesting. Following the “Best Bets” item is not for amateurs who don’t speak the language.
“Aside from your particular interest, the explosion of sports betting content is really absurd and unnecessary,” one Denver communications professional who was following my journey on Twitter opined.
“It’s bad enough when its sportsbooks and their partners doing it. Actual journalistic enterprises doing it too is not great, IMO.”
Will I keep up this new habit? I’m not sure (despite at least one person willing to fund the endeavor, perhaps for entertainment’s sake). I don’t care about the teams or players, which makes it less emotional — and I do still have that unused $150 sign-up bonus. Will I put it all on what today’s Gazette sports writer suggests is the “Best Bet”? I wouldn’t bet on it.
If you think you might have a gambling problem or might know someone who does, call 1-800-522-4700.
Corey Hutchins is co-director of Colorado College’s Journalism Institute, reports on the U.S. local media scene for Columbia Journalism Review, and is a journalist for multiple news outlets. Subscribe to his Inside the News newsletter, here.