I love a “weird” bet. While I won’t complain about a -110 winner on an NFL Sunday, I do particularly enjoy wagering on something a little off the beaten path, like sacks, esports props, or the method of the next wicket in a cricket match.
But I think another reason why is the direction the online sports betting business has trended, especially at the bigger shops, which is that operators are trying to give users as much to choose from as possible.Yet you can see the allure. For example, the Kansas City Chiefs winning this year’s Super Bowl, the game's final score going Over 46.5 points, and Travis Kelce making a ton of receptions were not good outcomes for most sportsbooks. In Nevada, bookmakers held just $6.
Moreover, Chris Grove, the co-founding partner of Acies Investments, predicted at the recent NEXT iGaming and sports betting summit in New York that the winners in U.S. online gambling will be operators with the “most mores.” But smaller betting markets could also reflect smaller salaries and compensation for the players involved.
In short, then, while bookmakers may be trying to provide as many options as possible for bettors, they may ultimately offer something that is more susceptible to shenanigans. That can put operators in an awkward position, and drag their partners in the sporting world along for the ride, when something suspicious arises.If those markets don’t exist at onshore, regulated sportsbooks, they will still exist offshore. Shrinking the number of wagering markets could mean legal sportsbooks in the U.S.