McKay Coppins' Year as a Degenerate Gambler 51%

3/17/2026, 6:23:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Framing Effect, and Unattributed Quote, with Anchoring Bias as the most egregious example at 25.1% saturation with 44 hits. Analysis detected 129 faulty-reasoning hits from 175 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50.5% and a BS Rank of 51% (10,852 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 50.40% of the article peer group.

The journalist McKay Coppins wasn’t a gambling man. 
But when his employer The Atlantic staked him $10,000 to bet on the 2025 NFL season, he couldn’t say no. 
Step one was getting permission from his bishop. 
Coppins is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which prohibits gambling. 
But since it wasn’t his money and it was for work, he got the go-ahead. 
And so began what Coppins calls his year as a degenerate gambler  because it wasn’t long before he started feeling, well, kind of addicted. 
He’s joining us to talk about sports betting, how it changed him, and how it came to be that last year alone Americans bet $160 billion on touchdowns scored, yards gained, buckets made and pretty much any other outcome you could imagine in sports. 
GUEST  
McKay Coppins | Staff writer at The Atlantic and co-host of the podcast Deseret Voices. 
His story is called “Sucker: My Year as a Degenerate Gambler.” 
Airdate: Mar. 
18, 2026 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%KUER: 2.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 3.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 7.4%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.2%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 4.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 6.3%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 4.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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