When The Atlantic’s McKay Coppins set out to report on the explosive growth of the sports-betting industry, his editors thought he should experience the phenomenon firsthand—so they staked him $10,000 to gamble with during the NFL’s upcoming season.
“As a practicing Mormon, I am prohibited from indulging in games of chance,” he writes. But he sought special permission for the journalist endeavor. On his first day of betting, Coppins wagered that the Eagles would beat the Cowboys by at least nine points, while also betting that the Eagles quarterback Jalen Hurts and the running back Saquon Barkley would score touchdowns. “I had purchased an artificial interest in a game I had no reason to care about,” he writes. By the night’s end, he calculated that he was up $20. Coppins and his wife fantasized about how they would spend his winnings: “Could we replace our dying KitchenAid mixer? Remodel the kitchen pantry?”
Five weeks in, Coppins had settled into a rhythm. Early each week, he searched for the most enticing games on the NFL’s schedule. He started betting on DraftKings, FanDuel, and ESPN Bet. This “heightened my investment in the games—but it also conjured something disconcerting and primal in me,” he writes.
Soon, Coppins was staying up past midnight to scroll through gambling apps. “My wife was no longer having fun with this stunt,” Coppins writes. “She was now focused on the more immediately visible consequences of my gambling—like the fact that our 7-year-old daughter knew the difference between a point spread and a moneyline.’”
Coppin’s tailspin began on a Thursday, with a Lions-Cowboys game. It was almost midnight “and I had just lost $500,” he writes. “I had endured plenty of tough beats up to that point, but the fluky nature of this particular loss made something inside me snap.
“Despite all of my research—my monastic study of the lines, my careful hunt for small edges, my righteous avoidance of the high-risk suckers’ bets that the apps were constantly pushing on me—I had been burned by a bad call from a random referee,” Coppins continues. “I became determined to win it all back.”
Online gambling needs to be outlawed or regulated out of existence.
Our society used to consider gambling to be a vice to be eliminated. It is life ruining for many people and has no real benefit to society or to anyone gambling.
I think there’s a small and limited value you can place on the entertainment aspect of gambling, but I agree that the risks to the broad population outweigh the benefits to the few individuals.
As an example, I enjoy a poker tournament (I’m not good. I have no fantasies that I’ll win.) when I last went to Vegas, I figured that if I lasted two hours and buy-in was the equivalent of two hours of a show or something, then it was worth it to me, knowing I’d likely lose. So you could make an argument that if a nominal bet increases the entertainment value of watching a game, then it does bring value to the sports gambler, and isn’t wholly negative for society.
It’s just usually not a nominal bet, and it probably doesn’t even make the game more enjoyable, is the tragic part. I don’t know of anyone who really finds those sites “fun”.
Sure, that's possible. But the problem is, most people aren't approaching it that way. Granted, most people who gamble aren't addicted and suffer life ruining outcomes, but it is a large price to pay for the entertainment of a relative few.
The move to having such a huge gambling sector of the economy began with the state lotteries. Many, MANY people were arrested over the years for providing these lotteries. The take is ridiculously high (FIFTY percent) and the money does not benefit seniors as is so often proclaimed. Even if 100% of the proceeds went to seniors, they are a large portion of the losers.
60% of those 65-74 play the lottery and 52% of 75 plus play also.
[OP] theatlantic | a day ago
When The Atlantic’s McKay Coppins set out to report on the explosive growth of the sports-betting industry, his editors thought he should experience the phenomenon firsthand—so they staked him $10,000 to gamble with during the NFL’s upcoming season.
“As a practicing Mormon, I am prohibited from indulging in games of chance,” he writes. But he sought special permission for the journalist endeavor. On his first day of betting, Coppins wagered that the Eagles would beat the Cowboys by at least nine points, while also betting that the Eagles quarterback Jalen Hurts and the running back Saquon Barkley would score touchdowns. “I had purchased an artificial interest in a game I had no reason to care about,” he writes. By the night’s end, he calculated that he was up $20. Coppins and his wife fantasized about how they would spend his winnings: “Could we replace our dying KitchenAid mixer? Remodel the kitchen pantry?”
Five weeks in, Coppins had settled into a rhythm. Early each week, he searched for the most enticing games on the NFL’s schedule. He started betting on DraftKings, FanDuel, and ESPN Bet. This “heightened my investment in the games—but it also conjured something disconcerting and primal in me,” he writes.
Soon, Coppins was staying up past midnight to scroll through gambling apps. “My wife was no longer having fun with this stunt,” Coppins writes. “She was now focused on the more immediately visible consequences of my gambling—like the fact that our 7-year-old daughter knew the difference between a point spread and a moneyline.’”
Coppin’s tailspin began on a Thursday, with a Lions-Cowboys game. It was almost midnight “and I had just lost $500,” he writes. “I had endured plenty of tough beats up to that point, but the fluky nature of this particular loss made something inside me snap.
“Despite all of my research—my monastic study of the lines, my careful hunt for small edges, my righteous avoidance of the high-risk suckers’ bets that the apps were constantly pushing on me—I had been burned by a bad call from a random referee,” Coppins continues. “I became determined to win it all back.”
Read The Atlantic’s April cover story: https://theatln.tc/J8Dj0w5F
— Grace Buono and Kim Jao, assistant editors, audience and engagement, The Atlantic
sludge_dragon | 21 hours ago
Archive link: https://archive.ph/WN7Le
u/theatlantic, please consider providing a gift link.
sorrylanguage2 | 17 hours ago
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/2026/04/online-sports-betting-app-addiction/686061/?gift=otEsSHbRYKNfFYMngVFweMtBGsFqtCisxCofFbIWdVE&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
chrispark70 | a day ago
Online gambling needs to be outlawed or regulated out of existence.
Our society used to consider gambling to be a vice to be eliminated. It is life ruining for many people and has no real benefit to society or to anyone gambling.
BadAtExisting | a day ago
But the shareholders are making profits! Do you not care about their children? /S
AgentIntelligent4269 | 13 hours ago
That’s a true statement As long as shareholders are making money nobody is going to stop this train
DustShallEatTheDays | a day ago
I think there’s a small and limited value you can place on the entertainment aspect of gambling, but I agree that the risks to the broad population outweigh the benefits to the few individuals.
As an example, I enjoy a poker tournament (I’m not good. I have no fantasies that I’ll win.) when I last went to Vegas, I figured that if I lasted two hours and buy-in was the equivalent of two hours of a show or something, then it was worth it to me, knowing I’d likely lose. So you could make an argument that if a nominal bet increases the entertainment value of watching a game, then it does bring value to the sports gambler, and isn’t wholly negative for society.
It’s just usually not a nominal bet, and it probably doesn’t even make the game more enjoyable, is the tragic part. I don’t know of anyone who really finds those sites “fun”.
chrispark70 | a day ago
Sure, that's possible. But the problem is, most people aren't approaching it that way. Granted, most people who gamble aren't addicted and suffer life ruining outcomes, but it is a large price to pay for the entertainment of a relative few.
The move to having such a huge gambling sector of the economy began with the state lotteries. Many, MANY people were arrested over the years for providing these lotteries. The take is ridiculously high (FIFTY percent) and the money does not benefit seniors as is so often proclaimed. Even if 100% of the proceeds went to seniors, they are a large portion of the losers.
60% of those 65-74 play the lottery and 52% of 75 plus play also.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1108791/lottery-play-age/
petertompolicy | a day ago
This is a fun read, there is a reason this shit is constantly being advertised.
If wasn't addictive then it wouldn't be lucrative.