LETTER: Nevada and in-game betting

Richard Velotta’s Sunday article “Regulatory oversight works” included some incredibly naive viewpoints from former Gaming Commission Chairman Tony Alamo. The level of proposition betting and in-game betting allowed and the ability for bad actors to influence the outcome cannot be underestimated. And to think that the fault lies primarily with domestic organized crime families or the federal government is laughable.

A third-string quarterback could be sitting on a comfortable lead at the end of one of the two halves and easily dump a pass into the ground. This would not affect the outcome of the game whatsoever, but a relative or friend with that advanced knowledge could easily have made $25,000 on an in-game bet. Foreign crime families can easily affect something like an obscure tennis match between the No. 20 player and the No. 400 player in the world by threatening the former or a family member with bodily harm if they don’t withdraw from the match “due to injury.”

There is simply too much risk with proposition and in-game betting and other games in which individuals can affect the outcome. Most should be banned.