The Week In Sports Betting News: Colorado’s Start Not Too Rocky

Written By

Updated on

Colorado sports betting

Happy Monday, everyone. The LSR team hopes you enjoy catching up on your sports betting news on a freshly redesigned website.

Major US sports are still suspended, but sports betting is beginning to rebound with sports that were previously not a main focus for bettors getting the spotlight currently.

Industry news is thriving as well, with happenings in multiple states. The most recent LSR Podcast dives into those issues at depth.

And, as always, follow @LSPReport on Twitter for updates on big issues as they happen.

Top sports betting news: Colorado has strong start

The Colorado sports betting market debuted with an impressive start, proving its strength even without major sports.

Gaming regulators announced the state’s six sportsbooks took $25.5 million in handle in May. The market officially opened May 1.

Four sportsbooks launched that day, all of which were big-name operators: BetMGM, BetRivers, DraftKings Sportsbook and FanDuel Sportsbook.

The state got its seventh sportsbook, SBK from Smarkets, late last week.

California sports betting backed by leagues

The NFL and a collaboration of the MLB, NBA and PGA Tour all support new efforts to legalize California sports betting.

The latest effort from SCA 6 and ACA 16 would give racetracks and tribal casinos retail and online sports betting. Cardrooms would be kept out of sports betting but could keep their current designated player games.

The leagues backing sports betting in California should be no surprise. Annual handle could be more than $30 billion at maturity and $2 billion in operator revenue.

And, of course, the leagues want a piece of that market. Their support also included requests for the use of official league data.

The tribes, meanwhile, do not support the bill as they are against cardrooms keeping their current operations.

Remote registration temporarily approved in Illinois

The coronavirus pandemic has disrupted a lot over the last three months. But it actually accelerated Illinois’ online sports betting business, at least temporarily.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker issued an executive order allowing online sportsbook accounts to be created remotely, instead of through in-person registration.

The biggest issue with the order is there are no online sportsbooks operating in the state.

But there appears to be time for operators to get up and running and build a database before the rest of the market. The executive order will be in place for the duration of the Gubernatorial Disaster Proclamations.

While there’s no official end to those proclamations, Pritzker re-declared all counties as disaster areas May 29.

DraftKings stock continues to climb

There have been very few negative days for DraftKings stock since the company first went public in April.

Even without sports, the stock continues to grow, with almost all analysts bullish on the stock and recommending a buy.

Analysts mainly like DraftKings for two reasons. People who might be staying home from big public events or places will want to put that leisure spending somewhere else, like online betting.

Many also expect states to be more interested in online gambling and sports betting after feeling the tax-revenue pinch with casinos shuttered during the pandemic.

RI sports betting ruling will be appealed

Rhode Island Superior Court denied an injunction that would have stopped sports betting in the state, but it won’t be the last we’ve heard of the case.

Plaintiff Dan Harrop told LSR an appeal to the state’s Supreme Court is already in the works.

Harrop claims the state was not clear enough when voters approved an expansion of gambling that the referendum also included sports betting.

Going to the Supreme Court was always the expectation, he said.

“It’s a tough pull for a Superior Court judge (who might like to be a Supreme Court Judge at some point) to find errors in the actions of the Governor (who nominates Supreme Court judges) and the General [Assembly] (that confirms such).  The Supremes do not have that personal issue.”