Nevada lawmakers introduce legislation to ban prediction markets 70%

By Richard N. Velotta88%

7/24/2026, 1:04:35 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Appeal to Emotion, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 21.5% saturation with 197 hits. Analysis detected 1,728 faulty-reasoning hits from 916 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 63.2% and a BS Rank of 70% (6,368 of 21,197 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 70.00% of the article peer group.

Two Nevada congressmen have introduced legislation to make prediction market contracts that resemble sports wagers illegal. 
A bipartisan effort by Reps. 
Steven Horsford, D-Nev., and Mark Amodei, R-Nev., would stop federally regulated trading platforms from offering sports betting and casino-style gambling under the guise of financial products. 
The Prediction Markets are Gambling Act is supported by union leaders and companion legislation was introduced in the Senate in March. 
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission contends that its status as a federal regulator s supersedes state gaming regulatory oversight. 
The legislation makes clear that the CFTC oversees legitimate financial markets  not sportsbook-style gambling or casino games. 
It closes a federal loophole that allows companies to bypass the licensing requirements, consumer protections, tax obligations and regulatory oversight that apply to legal gaming operators. 
Protecting jobs 
“This is about protecting jobs, protecting consumers, and protecting the integrity of our gaming industry,” Horsford said in a news release. 
“Nevada has always been the gold standard for gaming regulations. 
These companies are exploiting a federal loophole that allows them to effectively sidestep state oversight that every other legal sportsbook must follow. 
They’ve already cost states over $1 billion in lost gaming tax revenue money that should have gone toward funding schools, roads and critical programs. 
That’s why I introduced this bill to close the loophole, hold these companies to the same standard, and protect Nevadans.” 
Nevada gaming regulators have been battling prediction markets for more than a year by taking companies to court. 
The Nevada Gaming Control Board has had limited success preventing companies like KalshiEx LLC and Polymarket from operating online within the state. 
“Gaming policy has long been the responsibility of states and tribes, not unelected federal regulators,” Amodei said in a news release. 
“This bipartisan bill closes a federal loophole that allows sports betting to masquerade as financial trading and ensures legitimate event contracts remain under the CFTC's jurisdiction.” 
The Senate version of the legislation was introduced in March by Sens. 
Adam Schiff, D-Calif., John Curtis, R-Utah, and Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev. 
“Sports prediction contracts are sports bets  just with a different name.” 
Schiff said in a release. 
“And yet, these contracts have been offered in all 50 states in clear violation of state and federal law. 
Rather than enforce the law, the CFTC is greenlighting these markets and even promoting their growth. 
It’s time for Congress to step in and eliminate this back door which violates state consumer protections, intrudes upon tribal sovereignty and offers no public revenue. 
I’m proud to partner with Sen, Curtis, and Reps. 
Horsford and Amodei to put a stop to these illegal markets.” 
Union support 
Because prediction markets affect employment at legal sports books, union leaders have voiced their support for the legislation. 
“We applaud Reps. 
Steven Horsford and Mark Amodei for introducing the Prediction Markets are Gambling Act in the U.S. 
House.” 
Culinary Union Secretary-Treasurer Ted Pappageorge said in a release. 
“In Nevada, prediction markets are threatening the jobs of 60,000 Culinary Union members who are employed at casino resorts on the Las Vegas Strip, in downtown Las Vegas and in Reno,” he said. 
“We thank Sen. 
Adam Schiff for his leadership and Sens. 
Catherine Cortez Masto and John Curtis for co-sponsoring the Prediction Markets Are Gambling Act in the Senate. 
Culinary Union members have organized for nine decades for hospitality jobs to be good union jobs with fair wages, the best family health care benefits and a guaranteed retirement pension. 
We will not let out-of-state prediction market companies gamble that away. 
Congress must stand with hospitality workers and pass the Prediction Markets Are Gambling Act.” 
What legislation does 
According to the lawmakers, the legislation: 
-Draws a clear line between gambling and hedging: Prohibits sports and casino-style event contracts on federally registered exchanges. 
A wager on the Super Bowl does not become a financial product simply because it is offered through a trading app. 
-Protects legitimate event contracts: Bona fide hedging instruments  weather, economic and similar contracts  remain untouched. 
A Los Angeles ice cream shop owner made headlines this week for using weather contracts to offset lost sales on cold days, covering nearly half his monthly rent. 
That’s hedging, and it stays under CFTC jurisdiction. 
-Restores states’ rights and tribal sovereignty: Includes an explicit rule of construction that nothing in federal law preempts state or tribal authority over gaming. 
States and tribes remain free to set and enforce their own gaming policies. 
-Ends wasteful rulemaking: By resolving the issue directly in statute, Congress avoids years of costly CFTC rulemaking and the litigation that would likely follow. 
The bill also received support from the American Gaming Association, which has battled prediction markets since they first became popular in fall 2024. 
“This important bill reinforces congressional intent that gaming is governed by state and tribal law.” 
AGA President and CEO Bill Miller said in a release. 
“The AGA applauds Reps. 
Horsford and Amodei for introducing the companion legislation to Sens. 
Schiff and Curtis. 
Together, these bills represent a bipartisan and bicameral effort to protect consumers, uphold state and tribal authority on regulating gaming, and stop so-called ‘prediction markets’ from offering backdoor sports betting that is siphoning billions of dollars in tax revenue from local communities across America.” 
Gaming industry leaders have anticipated that a resolution to disputes over prediction markets eventually would be resolved through a U.S. 
Supreme Court decision. 
Contact Richard N. 
Velotta at rvelotta@reviewjournal.com or 702-477-3893. 
Follow @RickVelotta on X. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.2%Richard N. Velotta: 1.7%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 3.9%Confirmation Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%Richard N. Velotta: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Richard N. Velotta: 4.1%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 3.0%Availability Heuristic3.1%This article: 2.3%Richard N. Velotta: 0.8%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic2.3%This article: 2.2%Richard N. Velotta: 0.8%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.5%Hindsight Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%Richard N. Velotta: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 21.5%Richard N. Velotta: 22.3%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 5.6%Framing Effect21.5%This article: 4.4%Richard N. Velotta: 8.2%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.9%Loss Aversion4.4%This article: 3.2%Richard N. Velotta: 4.9%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.4%Status Quo Bias3.2%This article: 2.6%Richard N. Velotta: 0.9%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect2.6%This article: 0.0%Richard N. Velotta: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard N. Velotta: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 19.3%Richard N. Velotta: 9.2%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 8.9%Negativity Bias19.3%This article: 8.4%Richard N. Velotta: 2.8%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 3.3%Self-Serving Bias8.4%This article: 0.0%Richard N. Velotta: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard N. Velotta: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 1.2%Richard N. Velotta: 2.7%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.2%In-Group Bias1.2%This article: 2.3%Richard N. Velotta: 0.8%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.3%This article: 1.1%Richard N. Velotta: 0.7%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.4%Halo Effect1.1%This article: 0.0%Richard N. Velotta: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard N. Velotta: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard N. Velotta: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Richard N. Velotta: 1.1%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.2%Primacy Effect3.3%This article: 0.0%Richard N. Velotta: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard N. Velotta: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard N. Velotta: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.8%Richard N. Velotta: 2.8%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 4.5%Appeal to Authority6.8%This article: 1.3%Richard N. Velotta: 1.4%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.4%False Dilemma1.3%This article: 7.6%Richard N. Velotta: 2.5%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.1%Slippery Slope7.6%This article: 0.0%Richard N. Velotta: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.5%Richard N. Velotta: 9.5%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 3.9%Hasty Generalization4.5%This article: 0.0%Richard N. Velotta: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 11.9%Richard N. Velotta: 5.3%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.7%Bandwagon11.9%This article: 14.7%Richard N. Velotta: 12.6%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 6.9%Appeal to Emotion14.7%This article: 1.7%Richard N. Velotta: 4.1%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.9%Begging the Question1.7%This article: 12.0%Richard N. Velotta: 4.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.0%This article: 0.0%Richard N. Velotta: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.5%Richard N. Velotta: 0.5%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.1%Burden of Proof1.5%This article: 2.6%Richard N. Velotta: 0.9%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Appeal to Nature2.6%This article: 0.0%Richard N. Velotta: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.7%Richard N. Velotta: 4.3%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.3%Anecdotal6.7%This article: 2.8%Richard N. Velotta: 0.9%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%No True Scotsman2.8%This article: 5.1%Richard N. Velotta: 2.1%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.1%This article: 0.0%Richard N. Velotta: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard N. Velotta: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard N. Velotta: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard N. Velotta: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard N. Velotta: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard N. Velotta: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard N. Velotta: 2.1%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 15.3%Richard N. Velotta: 5.1%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.7%Biased Writer Voice15.3%This article: 9.3%Richard N. Velotta: 3.6%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.4%Indoctrination9.3%This article: 0.0%Richard N. Velotta: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard N. Velotta: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Richard N. Velotta: 1.6%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.7%

916 words analyzed.

Speakers

8speakers59%attributed speech376writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageSteven Horsford, D-Nev. • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageCommodity Futures Trading Commission • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageSteven Horsford, D-Nev. • 21 words • 100.0% coverageSteven Horsford, D-Nev. • 10 words • 0.0% coverageSteven Horsford, D-Nev. • 22 words • 0.0% coverageSteven Horsford, D-Nev. • 24 words • 0.0% coverageSteven Horsford, D-Nev. • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageMark Amodei, R-Nev. • 21 words • 100.0% coverageMark Amodei, R-Nev. • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Schiff, D-Calif. • 12 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Schiff, D-Calif. • 5 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Schiff, D-Calif. • 19 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Schiff, D-Calif. • 16 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Schiff, D-Calif. • 26 words • 100.0% coverageAdam Schiff, D-Calif. • 9 words • 100.0% coverageAdam Schiff, D-Calif. • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageTed Pappageorge • 3 words • 0.0% coverageTed Pappageorge • 16 words • 0.0% coverageTed Pappageorge • 1 words • 0.0% coverageCulinary Union • 9 words • 0.0% coverageTed Pappageorge • 33 words • 0.0% coverageTed Pappageorge • 3 words • 0.0% coverageTed Pappageorge • 7 words • 0.0% coverageTed Pappageorge • 17 words • 0.0% coverageTed Pappageorge • 30 words • 0.0% coverageTed Pappageorge • 11 words • 100.0% coverageTed Pappageorge • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageAmerican Gaming Association • 23 words • 0.0% coverageBill Miller • 15 words • 0.0% coverageBill Miller • 10 words • 0.0% coverageBill Miller • 4 words • 0.0% coverageBill Miller • 10 words • 0.0% coverageBill Miller • 3 words • 0.0% coverageBill Miller • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Mark Amodei, R-Nev.

100%flagged-word coverage
47 attributed words8.7% of attributed speech65% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Biased Writer Voice+50.5 ptsWriter: 4.8%Mark Amodei, R-Nev.: 55.3%55.3%Indoctrination+39.1 ptsWriter: 5.6%Mark Amodei, R-Nev.: 44.7%44.7%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.