Slashdot Mirror

"Baseball's potential future will be showcased in the independent Atlantic League this year, and it includes robot umpires..." reports ESPN, calling it part of "a wide variety of experiments that the Atlantic League will run this season as part of its new partnership with Major League Baseball." While MLB has long tested potential rule changes in the minor leagues, its three-year partnership with the Atlantic League -- an eight-team league that features former major leaguers trying to return to affiliated ball -- offers the ability to try more radical rules. MLB has chafed at using technology to replace ball-and-strike-calling duties for umpires, fearful that it's not yet consistent enough to warrant implementation... [W]ith the TrackMan system installed at Atlantic League stadiums, MLB will have a trove of data to analyze and see the effect of doing so.
Other changes aim to speed up the game, including bans on visits to the pitcher's mound and shortening the amount of time between innings.

Sportsbooks have closed 50,000 betting accounts just in the U.K. -- and placed strict limits on 50,000 more, according to gaming experts contacted by ESPN. "Bookmakers from London to Las Vegas are refusing to take bets from a growing number of customers whose only offense might be trying to win." Banning or limiting sophisticated players has been a regular part of Las Vegas sports betting for decades, and, like in the U.K., there's absolutely nothing illegal about it. Bettors say the practice is increasing and has even occurred in some of the new states (such as New Jersey) that have entered into the now-legal bookmaking game in recent months. "Americans should be worried," said Brian Chappell, a founder for the U.K. bettor advocacy group Justice for Punters. "It's coming."

In Nevada, refusing to take bets from any customer, from card counters to wise-guy sports bettors, is completely within any casino's legal rights. From Caesars Palace to the Venetian to more local spots like Station Casinos, every bookmaker in town will tell you -- albeit somewhat quietly -- that they've 86'd customers for one reason or another. Seasoned bettors are concerned, though, that the practice of banning or limiting accounts is not only increasing, but the reasoning behind the decisions is becoming more and more suspect. Many believe that the only thing betting intelligently will get you at some shops is a one-way ticket to being thrown out...

In shooting for commercial success, should bookmakers be allowed to refuse to take bets from customers who take steps to try to win? On the other hand, should a business be forced to take on a customer they fear will repeatedly damage its bottom line? The debate is getting ready to play out in state legislatures across the U.S. In May, the Supreme Court struck down the federal ban on state-sponsored sports betting. Full-scale, legal sportsbooks have since opened in Delaware, Mississippi and New Jersey, and many more states are expected to pass sports betting laws and set up regulations in the coming months and years.
"In the end, you have two professions, each trying to increase profits, but only one side gets to make the rules," concludes ESPN.

One London-based veteran of the international sports betting industry even suggests a peer-to-peer betting exchange which simply pairs people betting on opposing outcomes -- thus taking a commission, but not facing any risk.

The Supreme Court has struck down a 1992 federal law that effectively prevented most states from legalizing sports betting, clearing up a legal gray area and opening a door for state governments to join in what has become a lucrative industry. From a report: The court ruled 6-3 to strike down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PAPSA), a 1992 law that barred state-authorized sports gambling with some exceptions. It made Nevada the only state where a person could wager on the results of a single game.

States that want to offer legal sports betting may now do so, and New Jersey plans to be first. Delaware, Mississippi, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia are among the states expected to quickly get into the legal bookmaking game.

"After initial indications the main event would commence at 11:15 p.m ET, it didn't get started until nearly one hour later," reports Variety. An anonymous reader quotes CNET: Saturday's much hyped fight between Floyd Mayweather Jr. and UFC champion Conor McGregor drew fans from all walks of life, even those who'd never typically watch a standard boxing match. But when some of those fans settled in to watch the spectacle, beverage and snacks in hand, they found themselves in a world of hurt. Watching the fight wasn't cheap (nearly $100 on pay-per-view), so naturally, those who had technical issues as fight time neared -- on whatever platform -- were fighting mad. At 6:28 p.m. PT, as the undercard matches preceding the event aired, the UFC admitted on Twitter it was having technical issues with its Fight Pass streaming service due to the overwhelming interest in the bout.
ESPN confirms that the much-hyped event was "delayed due to pay-per-view outages."

Mike writes with a timely link to a story about the ESPN/TopCoder Winning Formula Challenge, a combination of fantasy football and competitive programming. The goal is to write an algorithm to predict the outcome of college football games using a collection of historical data provided by the tournament organizers. The season is broken up into 3-4 week chunks that are used to evaluate the results. Prizes will total $100,000.