EPISODE 247 | LSR Podcast

Who Is Trying To Kill Missouri Sports Betting? | Sports Betting News | LSR Podcast 247

|

29 min
Video preview

Who Is Trying To Kill Missouri Sports Betting? | Sports Betting News

A mysterious lawsuit challenging the online Missouri sports betting ballot measure appears, but no one is certain who is behind it. Plus, DraftKings goes shopping, an NFLPA lawsuit against the crown is even bigger than expected, a suit over alleged deceptive sportsbook marketing moves forward, and another illegal bookie meets justice.

Full transcript

Matt Brown (00:14):

Hello, and welcome to episode number 247 of the LSR Podcast. My name is Matt Brown, joined each and every week by the brightest minds in all of the gaming industry. With me, I have your friend and mine, Adam Candee. You can find him on the Twitter machine. That’s Candee with two E’s, no Y. If you hate yourself, you can follow me, @MattBrownM2. Everything we do, absolutely free. Your podcast player of choice, go in, subscribe, rate, review. We do appreciate all of that.

(00:39):

We will talk about a lot of DraftKings news here on the podcast. We’ll see what’s going on with yet another bookie going down in that thing that we talked about here on the podcast several times over the last few months. We’ll kick things off with Missouri.

(00:52):

If you’re watching us on the video feed, if you’re wondering if there’s a theme to what’s been going on for the last month, yes, there is. Because Eric Ramsey was on the podcast, and Eric Ramsey decided to make a comment to me that I had spent an exponential amount of money on hats and/or shirts, as I’ve gone to these various golf courses over the past year. I said, “I actually have.” I did. I’m that guy. I want to remember going to these courses. Yeah, if it wasn’t a shirt, it was a hat. Or sometimes, it was both. Just for you, Eric, I’m cycling through every damn one that I own for these podcasts.

(01:29):

This one? Kingsbarns. This was over in Scotland, Adam. I went ahead and just let everyone know how this is going, because I’m sure people are going, “What’s going on with this dude? He had a golf shirt on last week. He’s had a couple of golf hats on in the past few weeks.” It is all intentional.

Adam Candee (01:42):

You mentioned a moment ago that you could find us on your favorite podcast player. Let me just tell you something. With that kind of flex, Matt Brown, you’re my favorite podcast player.

Matt Brown (01:54):

Oh! Look at that. I like it. I like what you did right there. Look, it’s no big deal. Just a top 100 course in the world. No big deal.

Adam Candee (02:01):

No big deal. Listen, it’s no big deal. We don’t even really need to talk about it. No big deal.

Matt Brown (02:07):

All right, Adam. Let’s kick things off here in Missouri. We don’t often call shenanigans and stuff going on behind the scenes that we don’t like. But here we are, maybe some shenanigans going on there in Missouri.

Adam Candee (02:19):

Shenanigans, tomfoolery.

Matt Brown (02:22):

Yeah, I like tomfoolery. That’s a good one.

Adam Candee (02:24):

There could be some malarkey, depending on the way that this shakes down.

Matt Brown (02:27):

Depending on how it turns out, right?

Adam Candee (02:28):

We’re not sure.

Matt Brown (02:29):

It could end up in the malarkey category.

Adam Candee (02:30):

It does depend on how it shakes down.

(02:32):

What’s going on in Missouri is one of the probably quieter, more interesting stories that we’ve covered this year at LegalSportsReport. We’ve told you, on this podcast, about how it was going to the ballot. That process went very smoothly for Missouri sports betting to end up on the November ballot. Now, that smooth process has hit some rough patches here. There is a lawsuit filed in Jefferson City, Missouri, at the capital, that is challenging the certification process used by the secretary of state to put it on the ballot and asking that it be thrown off.

(03:11):

There’s a lot of nitty-gritty here that you can get into in Pat Evans’s article at legalsportsreport.com that’ll tell you exactly the grounds on which it’s being challenged, what it would ultimately mean in terms of how many counties qualified, so on and so on. I don’t want to lose you here in the first three minutes of the podcast, so I’m going to direct you to Pat’s article.

(03:31):

What I find most interesting, what Pat and I have both been researching over the last few days, is who filed this lawsuit? Because it is not really clear who filed this suit. The plaintiffs are named as Jacqueline Wood and Blake Lawrence. It’s been widely reported by people as “Missouri residents.”

(03:54):

Matt, I think you and I both know that two Missouri residents did not wander up to the capital and say, “I do not like this ballot measure, and I shall challenge it in a court of law.” That’s not how it went down.

Matt Brown (04:07):

Yeah.

Adam Candee (04:07):

The more we’ve dug into it, we see that these two people are both political consultants. They do not have any direct ties to any of the groups that we would think might potentially be in opposition to expansion of online sports betting in Missouri including untethered licenses that could go to DraftKings, FanDuel, et cetera.

(04:31):

Now, the attorney for these plaintiffs is actually on the other side of the political aisle. The consultants have represented largely Democratic interests over the last few years. The attorney who filed the suit on their behalf has represented a number of Republican interests. There’s no obvious partisan tie.

(04:52):

We’ve heard rumors, over time, that there are certain casino companies that are not thrilled about the idea of untethered licenses going to places that do not have a casino presence in the state. It wouldn’t be the first time we’ve heard about that kind of fight over tethering.

(05:09):

We are working on uncovering exactly what is going on here. We actually have a story, as this is being recorded on Thursday, coming out at LegalSportsReport, that’s going to dig into everything that we know about the people involved in this and the folks that we’ve talked to. In short, we can’t tell you definitively who filed this suit.

(05:30):

There is a hearing next week, on September 5th, in which the plaintiffs, such as they are, will have to be in court and represent why they’re challenging this. I’m sure that we’ll get more into who they are and what their interests are, because we don’t know at this point. We will have to find out more as the coalition called Winning for Missouri Education, which has been heavily supported by DraftKings, FanDuel, the St. Louis Cardinals, and other professional organizations in Missouri, is opposing this, of course. They will, I would think, dig in a little bit harder on finding out who the interests are that are standing in opposition at the moment.

Matt Brown (06:13):

They go hard on dictionary.com, as far as what some synonyms for tomfoolery could be. Adam, they don’t mess around. Synonyms. Craziness. They go straight into lunacy. Folly, if you will, for tomfoolery. The synonyms go hard. Tomfoolery used to be like, “Hey, man, there’s some tomfoolery going on.” That’s light. You feel like it’s maybe there is, maybe there isn’t, it’s tomfoolery. They’re straight up, lunacy, craziness, folly. There’s all kinds. They go hard. I like the synonyms here, for tomfoolery.

Adam Candee (06:46):

I don’t know. I don’t want to ascribe any sort of mental health issue to it. But what about horsing around?

Matt Brown (06:52):

Right.

Adam Candee (06:52):

Or horseplay.

Matt Brown (06:53):

Exactly. That seems more like tomfoolery than lunacy, right?

Adam Candee (06:58):

Yeah. I’ve known a lot of foolish Toms in my time.

Matt Brown (07:01):

Exactly.

Adam Candee (07:02):

I’ll be honest.

Matt Brown (07:03):

We might not call them lunatics.

Adam Candee (07:03):

I’m not going to name anybody by name. I don’t want to call anybody out by name, but you know who you are.

Matt Brown (07:11):

Yeah. Yeah, you’re out there. You know exactly who you are. Someone right now is going like, “Oh my God, he’s talking about me on the podcast.” Well, if that’s you-

Adam Candee (07:18):

You’re welcome.

Matt Brown (07:19):

Stop the fooling, Tom.

DraftKings goes shopping

(07:21):

All right, Adam, let’s head to DraftKings. In three different things to talk about here, with DraftKings, whatever order you want to start with here. Man, that is quite up to you, because we go from maybe good news, depending on how you look at it, to not-so-great news, to not-so-great news. Maybe we want to go in that order?

Adam Candee (07:40):

I will start with the news of the day. I’ll go in chronological order here and talk about something that had been rumored for quite a while. We actually had reported on it at LSR in the past. It came to fruition late last night, when DraftKings announced that it had acquired Simplebet, one of the leading live micro-market betting providers out there. No financial terms were disclosed. Speculation from at least one stock analyst that this deal could be roughly $195 million, $70 million paid upfront, according to Jordan Bender of JMP Securities. But the terms have not been released as yet. We would naturally find out about this at the latest in Q3 earnings, so you might just have to wait a little bit. But we will find out the purchase price eventually.

(08:28):

What’s interesting to me about this is that Simplebet had been one of those B2B providers that had been working with a number of sportsbooks. Now, it will be DraftKings essentially going out there, paying the price to say, “No. We want your technology working in-house, with us, giving us the line into micro-betting and better capacity for in play.”

(08:49):

Matt, it works right alongside with other deals that we’ve seen in the space of late. We talked about MGM’s acquisition of Angstrom. They put out a release about that before football season here, talking about their upgraded in-game abilities. They also have market. There was the PointsBet deal with Banach, that is now Fanatics obviously, owning that technology and trying to make their mark in the live betting space. But there’s been so much talk from the early days of this market, six plus years ago, about where live betting was going to fit into the overall ecosystem. A discussion of how, in the UK and Europe, it is more than a majority of how betting is done.

(09:32):

DraftKings not only going in here and attacking it, in terms of in-play. But Simplebet in particular has a lot of those micro-markets that we discuss. Next at bat, next snap. Those sorts of things that give people the opportunity to bet in real time. Now, I think there are a lot of folks out there, not only in the responsible gambling space, but in the sharp betting space, who would say, “Yeah. When you’re having to make decisions that quickly on these sorts of markets, you’re not always making the most informed decision.”

Matt Brown (10:04):

Right.

Adam Candee (10:04):

You’re not always getting down the smartest bet. I asked the Simplebet folks a while ago, off the record. “Hey, are we talking just about $5, $10 bets?”

Matt Brown (10:15):

Yeah.

Adam Candee (10:16):

Essentially what they were saying is, “No. On some of these markets, you could add a few zeroes to what we’ve seen wagered on a next play type of market.” Again, these are the sorts of things that, over time, are more likely to add to the bottom line of the sportsbook than they are to add to the bottom line of the customer. An interesting purchase here for DraftKings, going in for a reported up to around $200 million for Simplebet.

Matt Brown (10:42):

Yeah. Really interesting to me too, that one of the things that I read in the article here, Adam, because I actually texted to you about this offline. I wanted to have a discussion about just the market overall, for just in-game in general. Obviously, this acquisition maybe speaks to me being wrong in all of this. Because I actually thought that the appeal to in-game might actually be waning, strictly because of how we have to consume sports these days. So many people made the switch to YouTube TV whenever the NFL package went over there, especially when we’re talking about sports fans. That’s who’s going to be betting in-game, more times than not.

(11:17):

I thought, what delays that we see, with all of that, even the marquee games. Say you didn’t make the switch to YouTube TV. You don’t have a choice on Thursday Night Football, it’s on Amazon. It is what it is. It’s streaming, you don’t have a choice. It doesn’t matter where you get your television from. With all of that, I actually thought we’d be going in the other direction. Maybe a purchase like this says that I’m kind of wrong about that.

(11:38):

Honestly, anecdotally, and I think you and I are in agreement on this, just anecdotally. The only people I know that in-game bet for any amount of money are the guys that would be considered a little bit sharper and stuff. We know it’s so much harder to get down more money in-game as well, which is why the 35-ish percent, to maybe even up to 40% of total handle in the United States being in-game was just shocking to me. I would have said 15 to 20%, literally half of what they’re saying that it is. Because like I said, pregame, you can get five figures down. You can get six figures down pregame. If you really, really wanted, and you wanted to go to the right book, you could get seven figures down if you wanted to. You’d have to go talk to somebody, but that’s also a possibility. That’s just not possible in-game at all. I was very, very shocked by that.

Adam Candee (12:27):

You mentioned the sharper people getting down in-game. I think it’s important that we draw a distinction here, between what we’re talking about with these micro-markets, and next play, and next at-bat, and next pitch, and all that sort of thing. Those are different than when we talk about the sharp bettors.

Matt Brown (12:41):

Yeah.

Adam Candee (12:41):

The sharp bettors are going into each game with a plan of what they’re looking for in-game. They might not have liked the way the market broke during the week. They might have reacted to injury news that they saw on Sunday morning and decided, “I don’t like how it looks like right now, but if it gets to a certain line, if it gets to a certain total, then I might fire on it.” That’s a different sort of thing. That gets into the same thing you just talked about, with latency. With delay and rejects when it comes to are you able to get down what you want, when you want? There are a lot of questions that come along with this that we could get deeper into, as we discuss not only latency of broadcast, but as you mentioned, with the all-streaming ones.

Matt Brown (13:21):

Yeah.

Adam Candee (13:22):

You could dig really far down, if you want. You could get into rural broadband discussions, if you wanted to talk about the potential for growth in the market, and how much people are able to really be able to do this in areas that don’t have the same ability to connect to the internet. How good is your cell signal, if your Wi-Fi is not working well?

Matt Brown (13:40):

Exactly.

Adam Candee (13:40):

There are some places that you and I know very well. There are some places in Nevada, where if you’re on Wi-Fi, you can’t get the bet down.

Matt Brown (13:47):

Yeah.

Adam Candee (13:47):

You have to be on a cell signal because they know where your Wi-Fi is and they don’t necessarily want your bet. This is a discussion that goes many, many, many different ways, when it comes to the live betting part.

Matt Brown (13:58):

Yeah.

Adam Candee (13:58):

Now, Matt, you talked about how also, DraftKings had some other news going on as well. That is maybe not as positive for DraftKings.

NFLPA lawsuit against crown bigger than expected

(14:10):

As we discussed last week, the fact that there was a suit filed by the NFLPA, the Players Association, against DraftKings. We speculated that it might be based on the Reignmakers NFT product, and it turns out, that is what this lawsuit is about. It’s actually for significantly more money than we originally speculated. We had said in the range of $30-something million. It’s about double that, $65 million, the lawsuit filed by the NFLPA. DraftKings has not commented on it. We did ask them about the suit.

(14:42):

But the NFLPA is accusing, within this suit, that DraftKings essentially just isn’t able to monetize the Reignmakers products, and they shut it down for that reason. But that doesn’t exactly let them off the hook for the contracts that they have. A lot more detail in the stories that we have at LegalSportsReport from Matthew Waters and Sam McQuillan, covering this, Matt. But $65 million is not a small amount.

Matt Brown (15:07):

Not at all.

Adam Candee (15:08):

It is an interesting amount of discord between the NFL Players Association and DraftKings.

Matt Brown (15:14):

The other thing, I’m sure this is the first thing a lot of people think about too, just from a business aspect, is it’s probably an organization that you’re going to have to work with in the future too, in some capacity, with all of this. It’s not starting off all that rosy for you here, with that. But if you’re going to have long-term stability, obviously in this market, you’re going to have to work with NFLPA in some way, shape, or form for years, and years, and years to come.

(15:38):

How this all goes down, Adam, and how they handle this is, that’s the more interesting story for me moving forward. How is this handled? What is the statement going to be, when this is settled or when this is all said and done? Is it going to be like, “Oh, no. We kumbaya. Everything’s great,” or whatever. Or is it going to be something different? That’s what I’m really sitting here waiting on.

Adam Candee (15:58):

Well, that is the discord that I was referring to. Perhaps rancor, a little bit of rancor as well.

Matt Brown (16:06):

Yes. I like it. There we go.

Adam Candee (16:06):

It’s a real thesaurus-heavy edition of the LSR Podcast today.

Matt Brown (16:11):

Hey, but I like that you’re using these words right here because we get to go in. It’s just like somebody is sitting there going, “You know what? I like that word that Adam just used, and I think I’m going to put that in my vocabulary over the next couple weeks.”

Adam Candee (16:22):

Well, if I’m anything but a human word-a-day calendar, I do not know what that purpose is quite yet.

(16:30):

The PA discussion that you bring up is really interesting to me for another reason. It’s something we’ve discussed on the podcast previously. Let’s look at DraftKings getting involved here with Simplebet, and making that purchase to get enhanced in-game, live, and maybe custom type markets. Well, the more we’ve talked about this over time, the more we’ve discussed where is the line going to be drawn on how fast is a player running?

Matt Brown (16:56):

Right.

Adam Candee (16:56):

Or how high are they jumping? Et cetera, et cetera. Well, that all’s going to come down to biometric data and biometric tracking. You know who you have to go through, if you want your biometric data to be out there? You go to go through the Players Association. These are the sorts of discussions that will be very interesting to watch.

(17:14):

In the suit, you see that the NFLPA says, essentially, they tried repeatedly to get DraftKings to engage on this. DraftKings is trying to say that there is a clause within this deal that allows them to get out of it. They claim that there’s something in there that says that if NFTs are ruled to be unregistered securities, that there is an out in the deal. Really, there’s a lot of question about that. There’s nothing in the law at this point that would suggest that that is the case, but that is what they’re arguing at this point.

Matt Brown (17:49):

Yeah. Super, super, super wild, super interesting. Can’t wait to see how that goes down.

Suit over alleged deceptive sportsbook marketing moves forward

(17:53):

Then one final thing here, and again, this one maybe is the worst of all of them.

Adam Candee (17:59):

It depends on how far the suit goes, Matt. The one that we’re talking about here is DraftKings being named as a defendant in a class action suit. This is a suit over what is being termed deceptive bonus offers.

(18:17):

Now, we’ve talked a lot about this, when it talks about how much you can get as an amount for your sign-up, how much you have to put in, in order to get that amount. What is a match bet, versus what is a free bet? Et cetera, et cetera.

Matt Brown (18:32):

Playthrough, the timing, all the different stuff like that.

Adam Candee (18:35):

There are a lot of different ways that you can discuss how these things go down. Really, what is in question here is, talk about a $1,000 sign-up offer. Essentially, are you really getting $1,000 as a sign-up offer?

(18:50):

Now, nothing has happened in this suit that essentially is going to be groundbreaking to this point. But the news this week was that DraftKings had attempted to get the suit dismissed. The judge did not go along with that. If this is not in some way settled, as Sam McQuillan reports, we would move into the discovery phase of the potential trial. That is where things, of course, get interesting. We talk plenty about how sportsbooks do not want their proprietary business out there, in the public. I’m sure getting deep into marketing strategy is not something that DraftKings wants to be out there in the public eye.

(19:33):

Now, some of that might be potentially redacted info, we don’t know. We’re speculating.

Matt Brown (19:39):

Right.

Adam Candee (19:39):

I want to make very clear, we’re speculating on what could ultimately come out there. This lawsuit might ultimately not really go anywhere. But the judge has ruled that it is not to be dismissed at this point, so we’re keeping an eye on what happens there.

Matt Brown (19:56):

Yeah. It’s one of those things, Adam, too. Where it seems like it’s been just a lot of, I’m not going to say negative stuff about DraftKings here lately, but between the fees, and the this, and the that, and whatever. We haven’t had a ton of super positive stuff here on the pod about DraftKings of late.

Adam Candee (20:16):

There probably is a bit of a feeling out there, if you’re listening to this, that FanDuel is Kermit sipping the tea. That meme of just, “Oh, we’re just going to sit and watch what’s going on over here, at the moment.” Just a lot of news happening to come out at one point. Frankly, this could be even more of an interesting podcast had a court date that was originally scheduled this week in California gone down, because the DraftKings and Michael Hermalyn situation, between DraftKings and Fanatics, was actually supposed to enter a courtroom this week. That got delayed by a few weeks, so we’re tracking that as well.

(20:57):

If you like your literary references, “heavy is the head that wears the crown.”

Matt Brown (21:03):

Oh, I like where you went right there. That said, we always talk about this. Hey, we are not stock advisors, nor do we know anything really about stocks. Some of you guys out there do.

(21:12):

That being said, Adam, since all this really started going down, let’s just call it July 1 since we’ve started to talk all about this stuff. July 1, 37.30. Then today, 35.33. It’s two bucks. I understand if you have a million shares, or whatever, you have a share, two bucks is two bucks. I get all of that. It’s not like this is a wow, this stock lost 30% of its value since all of this “negative PR” has been coming out, or anything like that. Again, the stocks are at least somewhat stable.

Adam Candee (21:42):

Well, it’s a matter of taking the rollercoaster ride. Because it did drop under $30 on news of the surcharge, and then two weeks of that beating definitely contributed to DraftKings deciding to back off the surcharge. We saw positive reaction from the market almost immediately after that.

(22:01):

Now, you’ll find people out there who are DraftKings fans who will say, “Well, look at the greater market forces,” and this, and that. “There were days that the market was dropping anyway.” Our Matthew Waters has looked pretty closely at it, and the trading volume was highest on the day the surcharge was announced and the day the surcharge was dropped. The market spoke pretty clearly, DraftKings listened, and here we are.

Matt Brown (22:24):

So here we are.

Adam Candee (22:25):

Not back at stasis, but pretty close.

Another illegal bookie meets justice

Matt Brown (22:27):

All right. We’re going to wrap things up here with an addition to a story that we’ve talked about a couple of different times here on the podcast. You guys remember about that illegal sports betting ring that had a tie to Resorts World here in Las Vegas. Adam, just another piece to this puzzle.

Adam Candee (22:46):

A plea agreement announced this week, between Damien LeForbes, a professional poker player and the federal government, for … I want to read this directly from the story by Matthew Waters. “Pleading guilty to operating an illegal sportsbook and money laundering.” He faces up to 15 years in prison, three years of supervised release, and a fine of $500,000, or twice the gross gain or loss resulting from the illegal business, whichever is greater. I think it’ll be pretty clear, as you start to hear some of the numbers in this story, what that might ultimately be, on which side of that.

(23:25):

But, Matt, the most interesting part of this story is the casino that is involved in a lot of this situation has to do with how the money was, I’m not going to say washed.

Matt Brown (23:38):

Right.

Adam Candee (23:38):

That’s a little too strong. But how the money was handled.

Matt Brown (23:41):

Yes.

Adam Candee (23:42):

According to the story, the illegal sportsbook set up no later than January 2021. The bets were taken both in LA County, Orange County, and Clark County, which is of course Las Vegas in Nevada. It’s pretty similar to what we’ve heard with other bookie operations. LeForbes employed agents who would bring in new bettors in exchange for a portion of their gambling losses. A website or call center would be used to create accounts where the bets could be tracked. We know that that is a lot of the offshore action, where these call centers are set up.

(24:14):

The illegal operation took payments in checks and wires in the name of a shell company, as well as through crypto, cash, and PayPal. Some of the money went through what is known as Casino A in the release from the government. Casino A bears some resemblance, from what we’ve seen in other stories that have come out recently, to Resorts World in Las Vegas. We just saw that other illegal bookmaking operations have gone through that casino as well. We did recently see a 31-page document from the Nevada Gaming Control Board, talking about people with ties to illegal bookmaking and their dealings with that casino.

(25:00):

Now of course, that is not entirely confirmed. But according to the story that the government tells, LeForbes, the bookie involved here, wagered more than $148 million through Casino A.

Matt Brown (25:17):

Yeah. Yeah. Wow. That’s a lot of money. That’s a lot of money and an interesting story that we’re going to continue to put the pieces to. It’s not the end of this one, for sure, when it’s all said and done.

(25:28):

Adam, we got all these stories over at legalsportsreport.com. I know you said the great work that’s been put in by a lot of your guys over there. They listen to the things, they read the things. They inquire about the things so that you don’t have to. Go over to legalsportsreport.com, read all of those articles. Please click on every single one of them. You get a more in-depth look at all of this than we can even talk about here on the podcast.

(25:50):

As we’ve said earlier, everything we do is absolutely free. Go ahead, hit that subscribe button. Hit that little rating button. Go ahead and give us five stars. We’ll take a four. Or take a three, and you can shove it where the sun don’t shine.

Adam Candee (25:58):

Whoa!

Matt Brown (25:58):

We don’t want your threes. We don’t want your threes, we don’t want your twos. And certainly don’t want your ones. We’ll take the fours and the fives. Adam, the threes and below, hey, just tell us what we did wrong, and we’ll send you a pack of M&M’s or something in the mail.

Adam Candee (26:13):

Yeah. What I don’t like is when we get into those Yelp reviews where it’s like, “The restaurant was great. We loved this dish, and that, and that. But the hostess took 35 seconds to greet us. One star.”

Matt Brown (26:26):

Yeah. Yes.

Adam Candee (26:27):

Don’t be that for us.

Matt Brown (26:29):

The worst ones that I get, and I know we’re getting off on a tangent here. The worst ones that I read, Adam, is the ones, you go to a steakhouse in Las Vegas. You’re like, “Service was great, food was phenomenal. But man, it was really pricey. It was way overpriced. Three stars.” You went to a Vegas steakhouse. You said the service was good and the food was good, and you’re complaining about the prices. You went to a Las Vegas steakhouse, what are you talking about? How is that three stars? That’s on you. You get the three stars, buddy. Not the restaurant. You actually should get a one-star for that.

Adam Candee (27:01):

Now, listen, if more people were like Damien LeForbes and wagering $143 million when they were in Las Vegas, the steakhouses wouldn’t have to charge those prices. Because we’re well aware, Matt, we understand what’s happened in Vegas over the last two decades. People are gambling less, and so the resorts have raised the prices on shows. They’ve raised the prices on food. They got to make the money, one way or the other. Maybe people need to just start gambling millions and they can get some free steaks.

Matt Brown (27:31):

“Best steak I ever had in my life, I would have taken the waiter home with me. I loved him so much. It was expensive. Three stars.” I’m like whoa, whoa. What’s going on here? No. That’s not how this works. That’s not how this works. You can put in there that it’s a bit pricey, you still give them five stars. They did what they were supposed to. They served you good and they served you good food. Don’t give me this nonsense about it being too expensive. Anyway, that’s my rant on all of that.

(27:54):

If you leave those type of reviews, go ahead and delete them. No one wants those reviews. Just leave the good stuff in there.

(27:59):

Guys, this is episode 247. Coming up on episode 250 here in a few weeks, Adam. If you’d have told us we’d have made it to 50, I might have giggled. Here we are, heading up on 250 episodes of the LSR Podcast. I really do appreciate each and every one of you guys out there for listening, because we do hear your feedback, and we do hear about it’s nice to be able to come in and just get a quick wrap up each and every week. Adam, your team, doing a good service out here. Again, heading up to 250 episodes now.

Adam Candee (28:30):

We try to keep the tomfoolery to a minimum, and give you the news in a nice, easy, digestible, dog walk-length format.

Matt Brown (28:38):

But the lunacy, we will, actually. We’ll crank up the lunacy.

Adam Candee (28:41):

You know what? The lunacy tends to come out of the news. We just try to report on it.

Matt Brown (28:45):

We’ll crank that up. For Adam, I’m Matt. Talk to you guys next week.

More Episodes