Christine (RealReal Customer) (1:35)

Members and I get peace of mind knowing I earn more selling with the RealReal than anywhere else.

RealReal Advertiser (1:40)

Exactly this. That's the sound of your closet working for you. The Real Real Earn more, save time, sell fast. And right now you can get an extra $100 site credit when you sell for the first time. Go to therealreal.com to get your extra $100 therealreal.com that's therealreal.com.

Mike Pesca (2:04)

It's Thursday, February 5, 2026 from Peach Fish Productions. It's the gist. I'm Mike Pesca and I like almost every other decent person in the world of journalism am gutted by the gutting of the Washington Post. I subscribe to the Post. Not even a question. There are three publications I couldn't do this job without paid subscriptions to. The Times, the Post, and the Wall Street Journal. Bloomberg's right behind. I also have 10 other paid subscriptions because I am a maniac and the gist list beckons. My passcode that substack.com but I cycle through the Philly Inquirer, the L A Times, or the Chicago Tribune, or now the Omaha World Herald these days. But I could never cycle through or let a subscription lay fallow to a paper like the Washington Post. A great newspaper, once greater than it is now, but still consistently delivering. I don't know, maybe tomorrow it won't. Today on the Daily which is the New York Times dominant flagship podcast. Oh, by the way, an entity that the Washington Post has never come close to replicating, which is just one small part of the reason they're declining. Eric Wemple, very good media reporter who once reported for the Washington Post but now works for the New York Times, gave this analysis of of recent Post glory in reporting about Donald Trump.

Eric Wemple (3:22)

They were delivering scoops about his philanthropic organizations, about his business operations, and then into his administration. First year, for example, the New York Times and the Washington Post shared a Pulitzer Public Service Prize for coverage of the Trump administration's approach to Russia. And if you want to know how badly that offended Mr. Trump, you can just look at the lawsuit that he filed against the Pulitzer board a few years back.

Mike Pesca (3:48)

I thought there was an odd list from Wemp because of the people he mentioned, including himself. There was the Trump philanthropic Pulitzer Prize that was won by David Fahrenholt. He's now with the Times. There was the investigation. It's Trump's rushing connections. They were co bylined. But the most prominent reporter probably was Adam Entice. Once worked for the Post, now works for the Times. Wemple could have mentioned other Pulitzer winners. Book critic Carlos Lozada once worked for the Post, now worked for the Times. Could have mentioned the best feature writer in newspapers today. He he used to work for the Washington Post from 2013 to 2017. Eli Saslow was nominated or won a Pulitzer in four of those years as a writer for the Washington Post. In 2023, he notched another win for his new home, the New York Times. My point is some of these defections or poaching came after the writing was on the wall and talented writers knew there was no future at the Post Wemple describes it for him that way. But there was a savvier, more nimble newspaper richer newspaper out there poaching talent and just beating a competitor. The New York Times was using the Post as a kind of farm team for a while, which is what competitors do as they can. But all the Posts could do was stand by and hope Jeff Bezos subsidized them with more of his fortune. And so part of the Post demise should have been seen as two competitive organizations in essentially the same space. Post v. Times with the Times just doing it better. They had advantages to start off with, but a lot of times the bigger, more resourced leader in the clubhouse doesn't win in those situations. The competitor could have pulled some savvy moves the Post never did. It's true the Times has always had a stronger economic ballast than the Post, even as the Post was sold to Jeff Bezos as a rescuer who lost a taste for for burning his own money. From this I do not conclude anything close to the Post got what it deserved. Nonfiction media is hard, bordering on impossible. Much of the public just does not seem to want what the Post and the Times give, which is generally fair. Expert driven attempts at describing reality as it really is, not what readers or a potential audience demand that it be. This is not a business model that is doing very well in our 2026 attention economy. The fact that some have been able to succeed does not mean that the Post died because of mistakes. It's more like the Post is dying because it is so very, very hard not to die while serving up relevant, well sourced nonfiction that's expert driven that might occasionally piss off the audience. And then when you're billionaire benefactor starts prioritizing, ingratiating himself with a potentially hostile administration over the very luring prospect of once again setting $100 million a year on fire. Well, you don't have long in this media world. On the show today, I'm very pleased to give you the second part of our interview with Connor Patrick Heffernan who wrote the book When Fitness Went Global. And then in lieu of a spiel and speaking of big men who work out and have strength, I submit a handy gambling guide for Super Bowl. It's not really a gambling guide, it's an interview with Jonathan Cohen who is an anti gambling advocate. Though don't worry, he's no gambling equivalent of Carrie Nation. The over under on that interview is 12 minutes, but then there will be a Pesca plus segment for those who subscribe. Oh yeah, that's my other subscription service within this hostile media environment for those who sometimes get delivered news that pisses them off. To subscribe to Peska+go to subscribe.Mike Pesca.com but first Connor Heffernan. So building a wardrobe takes the right kind of balsa or perhaps oak. But actually I speak not of the physical construct. I speak of the concept of a suite of clothes. I'm learning this as I age and quince is helping me. They have everyday essentials with quality that lasts organic cotton sweaters, lighter jackets that keep you warm in the changing seasons, and polos for every occasion. Except, and this was weird, polo. You should not actually wait. I'm being told you can play polo in their polos. It was a situation like Acme earthquake pills that asterisk do not work on roadrunners. And I thought that was the same with the quince polos.

Jonathan Cohen (8:34)

But.

Mike Pesca (8:34)

But no, I'm wrong. Polos actually for every occasion. And that's good because I own quince polos and I've never played polo, but I've worn them quite casually and, you know, to a place that says we prefer a collared shirt. And not only do they qualify, no one will be squinting at you like you got away with anything. That is how nice my quince polo is. Refresh your wardrobe with quince. Go to quince.com/the gist for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q U I n c e.com/the gist, free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com/the gist Connor Patrick Heffernan is the author of When Fitness Went Global, the Rise of Physical culture in the 19th century. And in it he talks about a muscle man of yore who really was the Arnold Schwarzenegger of his day. Maybe even more prevalent and popular. Eugene Sando. Now, Sando's physique was pretty ripped, pretty buff. But even as recently as the dawn of television, not every American muscle man came across that way. Take George Reeves.

Jonathan Cohen (9:57)

George.

Mike Pesca (9:57)

George Reeves, as Superman could puff out his chest and look a little bit ripped, but compared to even the garden variety actor playing any superhero in a Marvel or DC movie these days. So I asked Heffernan, do these things go in a pendulum? Did the Sando ideal shrink fade away but then come back with a Schwarzenegger type?

Connor Patrick Heffernan (10:21)

So what you see is that as fitness evolves and fitness changes, popular culture evolves and popular culture changes. So looking at Reeves and Superman, what you see is during that era, it's more of a Charles Atlas physique is the one that's known among the general public, right, which is big expanded chest, not necessarily ripped and lean, but you know, clearly broad and big. And this is a big chest, you know, sucking in the tummy. But then, you know, we shift more into bodybuilding standards and bodybuilding ideals and you just need to look at the rise of Superman in the 1940s at the same time that we have the first bodybuilding shows in the US with the Mr. America Bodybuilding show, which is started in the late 1930s. You then go into, you know, the Arnold Schwarzenegger era of the 60s and 70s. Arnold's training partner, Franco Colombo is a personal trainer to Sylvester Stallone. You have a direct link between the bodybuilding world and the movie industry and that continues to the present day. So what you often find is bodybuilding cultures go off first, you know, they take the lead and then pop culture will evolve to that to the present day, where Liam Helmsworth, you know, looks like a bodybuilder who's selling his own workout supplements, etc. So with regards to pop culture and movies, it isn't necessarily a pendulum, it's more of a catching up continually. Whatever the ideal fitness physique is, popular culture in Hollywood tends to echo it a little bit later on. There's a lag. And I think that's an interesting thing.

Mike Pesca (11:47)

Do you think that there is an inherent attraction to things like certain ratios, certain bust to hip ratios or hip to chest ratios, or even body fat percentages, that there is some variation within the taste of the day, but there is still some fundamentals in what the human desires.

Connor Patrick Heffernan (12:10)

I think culturally there is. And that's an important distinction to make, right? Because you know, in Western cultures we have tended to see ancient Greece and ancient Rome as the forebearers for perfect ideals. And that's where we are talking about ratios that Even in the 1900s people are trying to mimic the ratios that you'd find in Greek or Roman statues. An interesting counterpoint to that would be the Acara, the Ajim cultures in India and modern day Pakistan, where the body ideals in those cultures for a very long time would be more George Reeves, Superman, you know, it would be athletic, broad, not necessarily lean, not necessarily ratio driven, but functional driven.

Mike Pesca (12:47)

So I think there, and by the way, let me just say that those and Iran or Persia too, they're excellent at powerlifting, right? They're excellent at things where you need mass. And also if you look at the Bollywood movies of the time. That's what you were seeing as the heroes.

Connor Patrick Heffernan (13:04)

Yeah, for sure. And so it is. I think culturally, cultures evolve over decades and centuries and millennia, but within those cultural scripts, I think each culture has a script for what is the ideal body, the perfect body, the desirable body. In the west, it goes back to ancient Greece and ancient Rome. In other cultures, it goes back to wrestling and gym cultures, or it goes back to agrarian strength or fishing strength or whatever the case may be, or farming strength, rather. So they shift. But I think within cultures, there is an innate human interest in physical perfection, whatever form that takes. Is it strength? Is it aesthetics? Is it both? I think there's a curiosity and fascination in it.

Mike Pesca (13:47)

Yeah. And as you've documented, there are pluses and minuses to valorizing this or even defining an ideal of strength. And maybe it's impossible. First of all, there is no ideal. And Sandow was a charlatan in many ways, and so were others. And, uh, there. There are a lot of negatives to emphasizing strength and muscles. But tell me if you think normatively it was a gain, or maybe just want to think it was an interesting thing that muscularity or some degree of muscularity began to be embraced by women. Or maybe I'm getting it wrong. And it always was embraced, and I didn't know it.

Connor Patrick Heffernan (14:26)

So. No, what I mean is.

Mike Pesca (14:27)

What I mean is women themselves not looking at men. Yes, yes.

Connor Patrick Heffernan (14:32)

I am an unabashed zealot for strength and fitness and muscularity. I am also deeply uncomfortable with the fitness industry writ large, which is so awful. I'm like, you know, what have you done to my boy? But it's interesting, right? Because in different cultures, there have been cultures of women's strength. So there's a bikini mosaic. Get your minds out of the gutter. There is a ancient villa from the 6th century. Mine out of the gutter, Mike. Mine out of the gutter.

Mike Pesca (14:56)

No, listen, I've seen figure 13 in the book. Don't worry.

Jonathan Cohen (14:59)

I know.

Connor Patrick Heffernan (14:59)

Okay, good, good, good.

RealReal Advertiser (15:00)

Okay, good.

Connor Patrick Heffernan (15:01)

I'm. But for those of you who are, you know, more low culture, it is a mosaic from the 5th or 6th century which shows women lifting like dumbbells, you know, women running, women engaged in calisthenics. In ancient Sparta, we know that women trained alongside the men, but then, obviously, for different reasons, men were trained to be soldiers. Women were trained to rear the next generation of, hopefully, soldiers. So there's always been a female strength culture, but it's rarely been equitable with men. There's Rarely been a like for like. Now that shifts in the 1970s, 1980s, especially in the US after Title 9, where you get more women going into Olympic weightlifting and powerlifting and bodybuilding. And then Obviously in the 90s, it's CrossFit and now it's Hyrox and Orange City Fit and, you know, everything in between. And I think that has been a net positive, especially because it has helped to challenge perceptions of what a woman can do. But it's also, and you know, people are clear on this, has helped women challenge their own self perceptions of what their bodies are capable of, what they're capable of. It's always been there, it's rarely been equitable. But we do have awesome stories from the past. So the let's go back to stones. Let's bring it back to the start. The Husafell stone in Iceland, the mythology around that is it's 180 kilo stone. The farmer's daughter picked up the Husafell stone and did three laps of the sheep pen. And now men and women attempt to recreate that feat. Katie Sandwina, who I mentioned, lifted 286 pounds over her head in the early 1900s. Karen Marshall in the US beat that record in the 1980s when she pushed 300 pounds over her head. And now women have continued to break that. Jan Todd, a friend and mentor, lifted the Dinnie Stones in Scotland in the 1970s. And now more women have recreated and beaten that feat in later decades. So like women, women can be strong. There have always been strong women. There has rarely been a time culturally, where women are encouraged to go into the gym for reasons of athleticism and functionality, as opposed to, hey, if you're fit, your kids are probably going to be fit. So we're now kind of the first time in human history where we have so many women engaged in so many strength practices. And yes, for all the negatives, the snake oil, the Instagram, TikTok Reels, etc. I think that's a net positive and that's the most you'll get from me in a happy tone as you look.

Mike Pesca (17:22)

Through old weightlifting regimens and you put a lot of these on your substack is the overriding insight. Everything old is new again. There's nothing, there's nothing that we're inventing now, no innovation that actually hasn't been tried and recycled for many times in the past.

Connor Patrick Heffernan (17:44)

So I would say that there's a certain script in fitness, right? So there's a marketing script which is pretty much the same thing. Over and over again, this will make you a better man, a better woman. To show you're disciplined, it'll make you sexually attractive, it'll distinguish you from the herd, etc. Etc. By the supplement. It works. Don't talk about steroids. It's only the supplement when it comes to exercise and movement patterns. Listen, the body is dumb meat. We are dumb meat wagons. Your body does not care if you do three sets of 12 on a chest press machine or three sets of 12 on a bench press. It just knows resistance and resistance. So in that, you know, negative light, everything old is new. What is different in the last couple of decades is obviously the rise of sports science, strength science, exercise science. More people going to the gym, more people, more specialized coaching things have evolved. Exercises evolve. So even something as simple as a squat, you know, people used to do that on their tippy toes, and then they do it on the tippy toes holding dumbbells, and then they would revolutionize the movement by squatting with their feet flat on the ground and a barbell on their back. And then you would squat to depth and not to that, blah, blah. So even a simple movement evolves over time. Is there ever any new invention? Occasionally, Brett Contreo, the exercise scientist, has revolutionized the way we train our asses. And I will give him full credit for that because he effectively popularized the hip thrust. You know when you're in the gym and someone has the barbell across their groin and they're humping it into the air? Yeah. They're trying not to make eye contact. That's Brett in the naughty. So I'll give. You know, some things are invented.

Mike Pesca (19:20)

Brie Larson has a really good Instagram post of that going wild. I want. I think it's just for form. I'm not really sure. Also, on your. On your substack, you excavate old exercises like odd squats that we've eschewed. And oftentimes you say, actually, these are probably good for you. You know, maybe they look weird, but yeah, do them well.

Connor Patrick Heffernan (19:42)

Yeah. And this goes back to. Listen, the body is a dumb muscle. And one of the things, you know, it's odd for a historian to be passionate. We're a dour people. We're a dour bunch. I genuinely believe in the value of the history of exercise, because people get really dogmatic around how you should train. Oh, you should only squat one way. You should only, you know, just do free weights, just do cardio, just do Crossfit, just do the. Your body doesn't Care. So if some exercise, as janky as it might look to Mike, works for Connor, Connor should do that movement. Likewise, if something looks weird to Connor. But Mike says, this is brilliant. For me, it helped my back pain. You do you. And that's where the value of history comes in, because you're like, okay, so for the last 20 years, people are taught to squat with their knees behind their toes. But when I do that, it makes me cry. So I'm going to do, you know, a hack squat, which George Hackenschmidt did in the 1900s, and that works really well for me.

Mike Pesca (20:35)

That's the hack squat. That's why it's called a hack squat. Hacking Schmidt.

Jonathan Cohen (20:38)

It's awesome.

Mike Pesca (20:41)

That was the preacher curl invented by an actual preacher.

Connor Patrick Heffernan (20:45)

I.

Mike Pesca (20:45)

So it looks like. It looks like we're praying.

Connor Patrick Heffernan (20:48)

Yes. And.

Mike Pesca (20:50)

But I did find out. I did find out that the Bulgarian split squat actually. Bulgarian, yes.

Connor Patrick Heffernan (20:56)

And the Romanian deadlift actually is credited to Nico Vlad, who is a Romanian weightlifter. So, you know, the more you know, et cetera.

Mike Pesca (21:03)

Yes. And the Romanian deadlift is my favorite. Why? Because I love Romanians or Nico Vlad? No, because my knees don't bend like they should, so I go straight up and down. Everything I do, I'm like, oh, so that's a version of the Romanian deadlift. No, it's not supposed to be, but my knees don't bend like that. Shit.

Connor Patrick Heffernan (21:21)

But my history tells you you can be like, oh, you can just. Like, no one looks into you like, oh, they did this in the 90s. This is actually the 1930s version that I'm doing. You know, you need to look into retro. Become a hipster with it. This is what I'm saying.

Mike Pesca (21:34)

Right before there were all those additives in the hack squat and the Romanian deadlift, the one. I think the one thing that is totally gone by the wayside and might never come back are jiggling machines. You know, those straps that you put yourself in and it just kind of vibr. Used to be a mainstay of physical culture, weren't they?

Connor Patrick Heffernan (21:56)

Are we not talking about vibration plates, which are quite popular now? We don't do the jiggle jiggle, but we certainly still do the shaky, shaky side of things. And depending on, you know, what kind of shake.

Mike Pesca (22:07)

Shaky is just science.

Connor Patrick Heffernan (22:09)

But jiggle, that's pseudoscience. That's crazy. That's the Stone Age, man. Come on. You know, and this is why it's funny. As a historian, things will come out, and I'm like, I remember this I can find you an ad for this. Oh, I can do this. Which is kind of nice, right? You know, because you're like, oh, I guess it's not all new. I don't need to keep on the cutting edge of things. I can just move my body. But then other times, you're like, you mfers are really trying to pull this one off again. Okay, okay.

Mike Pesca (22:37)

Well, Connor Heffernan has researched what goes on in a stone age, and he's done it through the lifting of stones. Who knows what he would find under that rock? It's all in the book When Fitness Went Global, the Rise of Physical culture in the 19th century. Connor, thanks so much.

Jonathan Cohen (22:53)

It's a pleasure.

Connor Patrick Heffernan (22:53)

Thank you so much.

Mike Pesca (23:03)

This Sunday is the super bowl, by which most people would mean the super bowl of football, but it's also the super bowl of gambling. The super bowl of gambling on football. Joining me now is Jonathan Cohen, who is the author of Losing Big, America's Reckless Bet on sports Gambling. We had him on. We talked about it. I like gambling. I'm beginning to think more and more that many of the red flags he raised weren't a coach's challenge, but a signal for society. Jonathan, welcome back to the gist.

Jonathan Cohen (23:33)

Hey, thanks for having me.

Mike Pesca (23:35)

So how big is the action or in any other way you could measure the amount of gambling and attention to gambling? How big is that for the Super Bowl?

Jonathan Cohen (23:46)

It's big. I would say this is the super bowl of gambling, but it is actually the Super Bowl. And so this is, you know, when it comes down to a single game. Right. So much money, so much attention is being paid to it. The other sort of big part time of year for gambling is March Madness, but that's spread out over the course of the whole month. There's lots of different games. So really. And football is, of course, sort of a national religion, as you know, and as you discussed with Chuck Klosterman, I think a week or two ago. So this is the day and this is the moment, and this is when a lot of people who don't otherwise pay attention to gambling start paying attention to it. It's like the billion dollar, billion dollar powerball jackpot. That's the one time a year people buy their ticket. I think the super bowl is the one time you place your Kenneth Walker under rushing yards, prop bet.

Mike Pesca (24:28)

Do you have. Yeah, I'd say 47. Do you have evidence? It depends. If Charbonnet plays, do you have evidence that it's a gateway drug? It seems like it might be, but is There evidence for that.

Jonathan Cohen (24:39)

So there's, there's evidence that just by sort of organically increasing the number of people who gamble, you are going to organically increase the number of people who have gambling problems. So 60% of people who gamble. 60% of NFL betters account for just 1% of revenue for sportsbooks when it comes to football. So 60% of people we can basically say are doing it completely safely, are doing it fine. Are, are they are like me, gambling in increments of like 5 or $10, not losing more than like $100 over the course of the year, but organically sort of almost by accident, maybe not by accident, depending on who you ask. You get people sort of falling down a slippery slope from that 60% into this 82% of revenue coming from just 3% of players. So it is a gateway drug in some sense. But many people are able to avoid that gateway and are able to, as you know, play safely and it never becomes a problem of any kind of.

Mike Pesca (25:32)

60% seems low to me from all the work I've done on it. And I'm not just quoting the industry, but historically hasn't the percentage of problem gamblers been in the single digits? Isn't that what's usually cited in the literature?

Jonathan Cohen (25:50)

Yeah, I mean we don't, so we don't have great year to year data over this, but for a long time and as far as we know still to this day, roughly 1 to 2% of American adults have an actual sort of diagnosable gambling problem. And that's it. I would argue that there's a lot of harm that can be done from gambling or experience from gambling. They don't actually require you to be officially diagnosed by a psychiatrist as having a gambling problem. But again, as far as we know, yes, it's still just 1 to 2% of adults who are sort of on these right tail cases with extreme addictions.

Mike Pesca (26:22)

So is the acceleration, is there acceleration because of the way we gamble now via apps and now and we'll get to prediction markets?

Jonathan Cohen (26:32)

Yeah, I would say yes. And this is where I'm, I'm sort of waiting for the new data to come in where I was going to suspect we're going to get above 1 to 2%. And we all we have right now are sort of state level surveys which is this is not your grandfather's Las Vegas where it's sort of a corner of a casino tucked away filled with cigarette smoke and you can walk up and order off a menu and place a bet on the Oklahoma over for the college football game or something. This is a supercharged app on your phone where you can bet a mortgage payment on check table tennis or whatever the case may be. And I think the version of gambling we have now, gambling has of course always been part of sort of human life, but the version we have now is just fundamentally different and fundamentally more addictive and more problematic than anything we've ever seen before.

Mike Pesca (27:15)

So now we have prediction markets. Polymarket and Kalshi. There are some downsides to them. There are largely unregulated. If the current administration weren't intimately tied into their success, they might not even be allowed. We could get into if afterwards they will be allowed. But right now what they are is that people could go on these markets. They're like, they're very much like gambling sites, even though they say they're not. They say they're more like futures trading sites.

Jonathan Cohen (27:42)

And they are, they are gambling sites.

Mike Pesca (27:44)

They are gambling sites. Let's, let's cut through the PR efforts. But my question is, are they different or are they more addictive than the Fanduels, the DraftKings, the other sites where, you know, kids often have an entry, they have enormous marketing budgets. Not that, especially lately. Polymarket and Kalshee with a CNN partnership and opening grocery stores in the city, they have a lot of marketing there. But that is my question. Any evidence that what goes on there is any more pernicious than what goes on in our phones from the other sites?

Jonathan Cohen (28:23)

Yeah, just as far as data, we don't have the data yet. In terms, I would say, just speaking personally, the user experience on a prediction market is just so obviously worse than it is on a DraftKings or a FanDuel. It's just inherently less engaging, less enticing. It looks a little bit more like an Excel spreadsheet for someone who's working at McKinsey, more so than a Fandor DraftKings app interface. But what you do have, and this is why my ears are up and why I'm worried about prediction markets, is not just the fact that it's generally unregulated, but the fact that the line between investing and gambling is totally blurred, that you can bet on prediction markets in some cases through brokerage apps. And the fact that unlike sports betting, which around the country, except for Wyoming, Kentucky and Washington D.C. is 21 plus, prediction markets are 18 plus. So you have 18 through 20 year olds who cannot access legal, who cannot legally access traditional sports betting, who are able to effectively bet on sports via prediction markets.

Mike Pesca (29:23)

Right. It's funny when you said the. The user experience is worse because I'm a user and I find them so much better. I haven't placed a bet on, I think, fanduel since I started with Kalshee. And it just offers, for instance, what the equivalent of in day trading. Right. If a team goes up, you could cash out at that point. I will put this on the screen on January 16th. I bet very small amounts, right. So I bet at 34% chance to win the Super Bowl, Seattle at that point and sorry, a 24% chance. Now they're at a 68% chance. If they win the Super Bowl, I get $150. But right now I could just cash out with my 67% chance and I would win $98. I'm pretty happy with that. Is that good or bad for society?

Jonathan Cohen (30:10)

As you look at it, it's neutral for society. I don't know. I kind of, in some respect, I'm just giving the benefit of the doubt to these companies who claim that they are sort of truth machines, right? That they are. That they are ways to aggregate the wisdom of the crowds and that is their purpose. And I'm sort of sympathetic to that when it comes to politics, maybe even when it comes to gas prices. Right. Like, what do people think, think gas prices or electric electoral outcomes are going to be? I'm just less sympathetic of that when it comes to sports, like, I just don't care or I don't think the society benefits in any way from knowing that Mike thinks that Seahawks are going to win. No offense, Right? Right.

Mike Pesca (30:47)

Nor should you. And I guess the argument is. I mean, I guess their argument on paper is more like, well, if you own a wings restaurant near the Buffalo Orchard Park Stadium, you might want to hedge your bets. And literally they say things like that to allow themselves to exist. But my argument would be something like, and I don't want to get too far in the weeds, the Fanduels and DraftKings seem to have much more of a pernicious business model. And they're really trying to cheat the player, I would say, or get every edge on the player. And then there is the fact that if you're good at it, they'll kick you off. I don't know if from what you do, you think that that is a good or bad thing. It just seems to me a very unfair thing. And when regular people hear this, they say, what? Yeah, yeah, yeah. They're happy with you if you lose. If you win, they'll kick you off. And at Least these news sites don't do that. And there are some better odds for the actual gambler. I don't know, maybe I'm just making the case that you can play longer before you lose all your money on Calgary and polymarket.

Jonathan Cohen (31:45)

Well, well, okay. So no one has ever accused me of being a, being a proponent of DraftKings or FanDuel but I will sort of advocate for traditional sports betting sort of by comparison for a second which in that first of all because of both fees and user incompetence. The basic, basically you actually can expect to lose your money faster on Kalshi if you are an average or sub average user based on a report that was just released earlier this week.

Mike Pesca (32:08)

Well, as you saw, I bet, I Bet Seattle at 34%. So you know where I stand, right?

Jonathan Cohen (32:13)

Yes. Yeah, I'm talking to the best, the best trader out there right now. And then, and then I would say the prediction markets again in the way that I think DraftKings and FanDuel absolutely do dupe users into thinking they can win. The prediction markets claim that they are exchanges, which means that you're betting against another person, that this is a pure wisdom of the crowds because it's Mike and John and Timmy and Bobby and Freddie and I don't know why I'm only using men's names, but whatever. And they're the only ones who are buying these contracts. But in fact there are institutional investors and players who provide the initial capital for some of these markets and we don't really know for sure, but might be buying contracts over the course of the market too. So Mike thought, thinks he's betting on the Democratic primary against me, but he's actually betting against a bunch of hedge fund traders wearing blue button downs and khakis in some high rise building in New York who are going to beat him on the price 10 times out of 10. So I would say both, both traditional sportsbooks and prediction models are finding ways to sort of pull the rug out from under regular users. And so I don't want to sort of claim that one is any better than the other.

Mike Pesca (33:13)

I gotcha. I'll also stick up for the prediction market by saying it allowed me to put a bet on will Susan Collins run for reelection and if she doesn't, I put $10 down and I win $100. I'd be, I guess, sad for the people of Maine. I have a bet on Oscar for Best Actress. I've taken Emma Stone and Rose Byrne. I know they're extreme long shots, but again I put, I think, a dollar on each. I don't know how to weigh. There is an entertainment value. What is the value of entertainment value? Do you think there should be? Given all that we know, you'll intellectually say, sure, I know it can be entertaining, but the risks and costs are too great. I know you're not compelled to stick up for or put a lot of thought into the value of entertainment, especially entertainment that derives from a very entertaining event. But the Super Bowl. But how do you think about that?

Jonathan Cohen (34:07)

No, I think that's really fair. And I don't want to just reflexively sort of be a scold and say, oh, here's a thing that. Where some people will run into trouble, therefore we should get rid of it or reform it. Because in that case, you're getting rid of alcohol, marijuana, fast food, the Internet, pornography. You're getting rid of all the things that sort of cumulatively, I think, just make life worth living. Not that I think pornography makes life worth living, but you know what I mean. So I don't want to.

Mike Pesca (34:31)

You rhetorically wound yourself into a cul de sac with that one. Maybe you should have the Home shopping network at 2:00am yeah, yeah.

Jonathan Cohen (34:39)

Just cut it off after the Internet. Yeah. Not gotten more specific than that. So I don't want to just go around and start banning things for the sake of banning things. Not to mention the fact that with gambling it wouldn't actually work. But you're right. When we're weighing the harms and we're weighing the costs and the benefits to society or to the users, it's sort of hard to math in entertainment and include that in the utility function. And that's why I think we, on the American Institute for Boys and Men, where I now work, we are not sort of in favor of prohibition. We're in favor of reform and the acknowledgement of the way that sports betting or betting in general can augment people's lives and can improve their enjoyment of sports and they can derive utility from it, but they can do so without. Without creating the system that allows 82% of the money to come from just 3% of people.

Mike Pesca (35:26)

Okay, so what are your reform or mitigationist recommendation and explain why you think those will have the most impact and work the best?

Jonathan Cohen (35:37)

Yeah, I mean, so our byword for all of. For all the reforms that we propose is friction. Right. Is to slow it down and to basically make it not impossible. As we said, we're always going to have Americans who run into gambling problems, but almost impossible for someone to sort of fall down the hill, so to speak for them to fall from that 60% of betters who contribute 1% of revenue into those higher categories. So putting as many speed bumps as we can along the way. So things like, oh, if you deposit money into your account, you need to wait 12 to 24 hours before you can gamble with it to prevent loss chasing or I don't know, should you be allowed to gamble on the next point in a Czech table tennis tournament? I don't think so. Like just getting rid of those things on the apps in general, those seem to be actually pretty common sense. Not to mention other reforms both to the interface of the app and then sort of the financials behind them in terms of ways you get money in and out, those seem to me again I think probably pretty easy. And it's easy to get buy in from a lot of people for those because why the hell are you able to gamble a mortgage payment on check table tennis?

Mike Pesca (36:37)

And are these reforms specifically going to work more? You mentioned that you were, I should say, the sports betting policy lead for the American Institute for Boys and Men. Will it help boys specifically?

Jonathan Cohen (36:50)

Yes. I mean young men are notorious for embracing risk.

Mike Pesca (36:55)

And we have a little more with John. I think we'll, you know, you're going to want to listen to our picks, our guaranteed locks of the week. Actually it's not that, but we do talk a little bit actual super bowl spreads. And to do that you want to subscribe mike pesca.com that's the Pesca plus version. You get more bonus episodes on the show. You also get the show without ads. There's also an ad free version that's at subscribe.mike pesca.com there's no better way to help the Gist and yourself. And that's it for today's show. Cory Wara produces the Gist. Kathleen Sykes runs the Gist list. Jeff Craig runs our media. We're looking for a great booker. A couple of you have suggested yourselves or friends. Email us if you want to book great guests for the show and other Peach Fish entities. We're at the gist ikepeska.com who's monitoring that email and pretty much everything else. It's COO of Peach Fish Productions, formerly chief bullshit officer. She's moved into the realm of the actual Michelle Pesco OOM Peru. G Peru. Do Peru. And thanks for listening.

T-Mobile Spokesperson (38:06)

They put hot honey sauce on the snack wrap. McDonald's outdid themselves again. The classic snack wrap we all know and love paired with the sweet heat of hot honey sauce. Just what we needed to make it even more perfect. You know the drill. So go to McDonald's and try it today.

Libsyn Ads Narrator (38:25)

Marketing is hard, but I'll tell you a little secret. It doesn't have to be. Let me point something out. You're listening to a podcast right now and it's great. You love the host. You seek it out and download it. You listen to it while driving, working out, cooking, even going to the bathroom. Podcasts are a pretty close companion. And this is a podcast ad. Did I get your attention? You can reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising from Libsyn Ads. Choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements or run a pre produced ad like this one across thousands of shows. To reach your target audience in their favorite podcasts with Libsyn ads, go to Libsynads.com that's L I B S Y-N ads.com today.