Introduction: This is Episode 34 of the After Gambling Podcast. In this episode, I had a chat with Steve Ruddock, a casino and gaming analyst and consultant. We covered a wide range of topics, from the rush to bring sports betting to the United States to whether or not poker is actually gambling.
Hey there, and welcome to the After Gambling Podcast. My name is Jamie, and I am a compulsive gambler and the host of this show. The last time I gambled was July 15th, 2010.
As I mentioned, today’s episode is an interview I had with Steve Ruddock, who is an expert on the gaming and casino industry. Steve is extremely knowledgeable, and he follows the industry closely. When PASPA was overturned—which is the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, the law that had previously prevented states from legalizing sports betting—I started following Steve’s work on Twitter and reached out to him. He was kind enough to come on the show, and we had a great discussion covering a lot of important issues. I think you’ll get a lot out of it, especially Steve’s perspective on why we need to slow down and carefully consider how we’re expanding sports betting.
Interview Begins: Jamie: Well, Steve, thank you for coming on. I’ve noticed you’ve been one of the people consistently calling for a more measured approach to sports betting legalization. There’s been a rush to get everything approved, but you’ve been urging caution. Could you share some of your thoughts on why you believe we should slow down?
Steve: Sure. Typically, in gaming, the operators and developers are eager to get their product to market as quickly as possible. However, the job of regulators is to slow that process down, to establish safeguards, and ensure what they’re putting out is properly tested. Right now, what we’re seeing is that operators are being allowed to move forward very quickly. For example, at the Meadowlands with FanDuel, it seems like they were approved incredibly fast—faster than usual. This raises questions about how thoroughly these companies are being vetted before they get into the market.
Jamie: Yeah, that is concerning. It makes me wonder if anyone really knows how these companies are getting approved so quickly.
Steve: Exactly. I imagine there’s some kind of temporary approval process, which is often how it works. But it still makes me question why there’s such urgency for sports betting operators to get in the market, especially when other forms of gambling, like a new table game or online gaming, go through months of review and testing before approval. The question really becomes: Why aren’t we treating sports betting the same way?
Jamie: Do you think it’s mainly about the potential revenue?
Steve: I think that’s definitely part of it. The exposure sports betting has received in the media makes it seem like it needs to be rolled out as quickly as possible while it’s still a hot topic. But we’re only talking about a couple of months of revenue that might bring in a few million dollars for the state. It’s not worth rushing through without proper regulation.
Jamie: And as a marketer, I understand the desire to be first to market, but it seems like a minimal benefit. The potential risk and downsides seem much bigger.
Steve: Right. Especially since, once other neighboring states legalize sports betting, it becomes about convenience and the quality of your product. Being first doesn’t mean much if your product isn’t well-regulated or if competitors can offer a better experience.
Jamie: Exactly. And you brought up something interesting with the Meadowlands and FanDuel. Can you explain what happened there?
Steve: Sure. It’s a minor incident, but it highlights the risk of rushing things. The Meadowlands sportsbook closed at 1 a.m., but there was a game that went into extra innings. Bettors who were still at the bar couldn’t cash out because the vault was closed, and they ran out of money in the drawer. Some people got paid, and others didn’t. It was a chaotic situation that could have been avoided if they had thought through scenarios like that ahead of time.
Jamie: Right, it’s a small issue, but it could have been easily prevented with more careful planning.
Steve: Exactly. That’s my concern. If we’re already seeing these kinds of minor issues, what bigger issues might arise in the future because of this rush to market?
Jamie: Right. And that’s a really important point because when you rush into something, the small issues often reveal the bigger underlying problems that you just haven’t thought through yet. It makes me think about the responsibility that should fall on the legislators and regulators. What can they do differently to make sure we don’t face these problems down the road?
Steve: I think a lot of it comes down to making sure the regulations are thorough and that there are strong checks in place before anyone gets a license. It’s about slowing down and taking the time to understand all the implications, not just on the revenue side but on consumer safety, problem gambling prevention, and ensuring there’s a solid infrastructure in place. It’s really about having the foresight to ask the tough questions: What are we missing here? What could go wrong?
Jamie: Exactly. And speaking of problem gambling, I know it’s something you’ve been pretty vocal about in terms of how funding and treatment are often overlooked when these laws are put in place. What are some of the biggest challenges you see there?
Steve: One of the biggest challenges is that a lot of these new gambling laws focus almost entirely on the revenue aspect without considering the social consequences. Many of the states that are expanding into sports betting aren’t putting anything aside for responsible gambling initiatives or problem gambling support. They might put in a requirement to display a 1-800-GAMBLER number somewhere, but that’s about it.
Jamie: Right, and it almost feels like a token gesture at times. Like, just putting up a phone number isn’t really the kind of support people need if they’re struggling.
Steve: Exactly. And the sad part is that it’s actually really easy to set up some kind of fund or initiative for responsible gaming as part of these new laws. In New Jersey, when online gaming was legalized, they put in place a requirement for every licensed operator to contribute $250,000 annually to fund responsible gambling initiatives. That’s been used for research by Rutgers, which has been really helpful in understanding the impact of online gambling.
Jamie: Yeah, that’s what’s needed—more data, more research. You can’t make informed decisions if you don’t have the information in the first place. And I think that’s been the issue for so long. Gambling has expanded, but we haven’t really invested in understanding its effects on people.
Steve: Absolutely. Massachusetts has done a good job of trying to track the impact of their casinos, looking at property values, crime rates, credit card fraud, and other social harms. They’re putting in the effort to gather the data, which is what you need if you want to mitigate those negative impacts. It’s not enough to just say, “We’ll put a number on the billboard.” You need to understand the entire ecosystem around gambling—how it affects not only gamblers but also their families and communities.
Jamie: Yeah, I think it really is a numbers game. The more people gambling, the more people who are inevitably going to develop problems. If you’re going to expand the market, then you need to expand the support systems and funding accordingly. It just makes sense.
Steve: Exactly. And there’s an opportunity here for states that have lagged behind in responsible gambling support to catch up. If they’re reopening their gaming laws to add sports betting, they should also be revisiting what they’re doing, or not doing, for problem gambling treatment and prevention. It’s a chance to do things right.
Jamie: That’s a great point. There’s this perception that because gambling is seen as entertainment, that’s where the discussion ends. But for a lot of people, it’s not entertainment—it’s addiction. And I think it’s our responsibility to make sure that when we legalize it, we also put safeguards in place.
Steve: Exactly. And the problem is that it takes a lot of time and effort to set up those safeguards, and that’s why I keep urging people to slow down. The rush to get these sports betting markets live is creating opportunities for things to go wrong, especially when it comes to issues like problem gambling, data security, and market integrity.
Jamie: You mentioned data security and market integrity. I think that’s another area where there’s a lot of concern, especially with the NCAA and other less mainstream sports. With sports betting coming in, there’s this worry that athletes—especially college athletes—could be vulnerable to attempts to influence games. What’s your take on that?
Steve: That’s definitely a major concern. College athletes are particularly vulnerable because, in most cases, they aren’t paid, and they’re still young, often without strong financial backing. So, if someone were to approach them and offer money to influence a game, there’s a higher risk there compared to professional athletes who are making millions of dollars. One of the ways to address this would be to put a limit on the amount that can be wagered on certain games, particularly for smaller sports or college events.
Jamie: That makes a lot of sense—just limit the incentive. If there’s not a big potential payout for fixing a game, then there’s not much of a reason for someone to try.
Steve: Exactly. If you put a cap on the bet amount, you’re limiting the risk. For smaller, less popular sports, the risk of game-fixing goes down significantly if you only allow people to bet a couple of hundred dollars. No one is going to go through the trouble of trying to fix a game if the return isn’t there.
Jamie: That’s a good point. The other side of that is just monitoring and tracking bets. I feel like with the technology we have now, there should be better systems in place for tracking betting patterns to identify suspicious activity.
Steve: Yes, absolutely. In a regulated market, you can track all of that—who’s betting, where they’re betting, how much they’re betting—and you can start to spot anomalies. That’s one of the benefits of having a legal, regulated sports betting market compared to an illegal one. The problem is that we need to actually make use of that data and have systems in place to act on it.
Jamie: Yeah, and hopefully we get to that point where all the pieces come together—regulation, responsible gambling funding, data tracking—so that the industry can grow without causing too much harm.
Steve: Definitely. It’s a balancing act. There’s nothing inherently wrong with gambling—it’s a form of entertainment—but it’s when people get in over their heads that we need to be concerned. And that’s why it’s so important that we approach all of this thoughtfully, rather than just trying to grab as much revenue as possible as quickly as possible.
Jamie: For sure. And I think, as you mentioned earlier, if you’re going to be involved in the industry, you have to be willing to address the potential downsides. It’s not enough to just take the profits—you have to be accountable for what happens to people who get hurt.
Steve: Exactly. And that’s the ethical side of it. If we want to promote gambling as entertainment, we have to be honest about the fact that it can become a problem for some people. We need to put the right measures in place to prevent that from happening as much as we can.
Jamie: Absolutely. Well, Steve, this has been a really insightful conversation. I appreciate you coming on and sharing your thoughts. I think it’s so important to hear from people like you who are looking at the bigger picture and not just focused on the immediate gains.
Steve: Thanks for having me, Jamie. I really enjoyed the discussion. And yeah, I think it’s important for all of us to think about how we can make this industry better, not just bigger.
Jamie: For sure. So, for anyone who wants to follow Steve, I’ll link to his Twitter in the show notes. He’s got a lot of great insights into what’s going on in the gambling world, and he’s definitely worth a follow. Thanks again, Steve.
Steve: Thanks, Jamie. Take care.
Jamie (Outro):
So there you have it, my interview with Steve Ruddock. I hope you found that conversation as insightful as I did. It’s clear that there’s a lot to think about when it comes to expanding sports betting and gambling in general, and we really need to consider not just the potential for increased revenue, but also the social responsibilities that come with it.
I think Steve made some great points, especially about the rush to market and the importance of taking our time to get it right. We have a real opportunity here to shape the future of gambling in the United States in a way that minimizes harm and maximizes benefits for everyone involved, but that’s only going to happen if we’re thoughtful and deliberate about how we proceed.
As always, thanks for tuning in to the After Gambling Podcast. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to reach out. I love hearing from all of you. And don’t forget to subscribe, leave a review, and share the podcast if you think others might benefit from it. I’ll be back soon with another episode, and until then, take care of yourselves, and stay mindful.
Music Credit:
Music for the show is “Something Elated” by Broke For Free and is licensed under the Creative Commons license.
