Missouri's sports betting tax revenue decreased in June despite FIFA World Cup in Kansas City 30%

By Karina Grokhovskaya34%

8/8/2026, 2:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), False Dilemma, and Framing Effect, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 15.8% saturation with 57 hits. Analysis detected 433 faulty-reasoning hits from 360 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 32.8% and a BS Rank of 30% (21,470 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 70.20% of the article peer group.

Missouri saw a major decrease in sports betting revenue in June, despite FIFA World Cup games going on in the latter half of the month. 
According to the Missouri Gaming Commission, total taxable revenue was $13.67 million, a 36% decrease from the previous month, and roughly $1.37 million was collected in sports wagering taxes. 
The number of wagers also decreased by 12% in June to 7.34 million. 
The total amount wagered in June was $258.3 million, a 0.8% increase from May. 
The total payouts for both mobile and retail sports bets were roughly $233.6 million in June. 
Neil Schwartz, President of SBRnet, said the reason for the major decrease in revenue is fewer people placing bets overall. 
"It basically has nothing to do with people winning or losing, because frankly, you know they win either way. 
The state wins either way, so it's just about less people placing bets," Schwartz said. 
Almost all sports bets were made on mobile betting sites, accounting for 99.5% of all money wagered. 
The top mobile betting app was DraftKings, receiving roughly $103 million in wagers and 3.36 million wagers placed. 
Parlays continue to be the most popular betting method, with 45% of all sports bets being parlays across both retail and mobile. 
Soccer accounted for about 10.5% of all bets, followed behind by baseball with nearly 10% of all bets. 
Schwartz said the reason for the continued interest in parlays is the lure of winning big. 
"There's a reason why gambling companies don't go out of business, and it's because of things like parlays," Schwartz said. 
"Using teaser bets and parlays and things like that, you know, tend to suck people in." 
According to Schwartz, the introduction of prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket has slowly worn away the novelty of traditional sports betting platforms. 
"You're not doing parlays, they're not doing teaser bets, they're not doing a lot of those other traditional things that are done with sports gambling," Schwartz said. 
This story was first published by Missouri Business Alert, a fellow member of the KC Media Collective. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.3%Karina Grokhovskaya: 1.3%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Confirmation Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Karina Grokhovskaya: 1.1%Columbia Missourian: 2.5%Availability Heuristic4.4%This article: 6.1%Karina Grokhovskaya: 1.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic6.1%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 3.8%Columbia Missourian: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.1%Karina Grokhovskaya: 8.3%Columbia Missourian: 5.1%Framing Effect11.1%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 4.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Karina Grokhovskaya: 1.1%Columbia Missourian: 5.0%Negativity Bias4.4%This article: 9.7%Karina Grokhovskaya: 2.4%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias9.7%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.4%Karina Grokhovskaya: 3.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Recency Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 2.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 12.8%Karina Grokhovskaya: 3.2%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%False Dilemma12.8%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 1.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 4.1%Columbia Missourian: 3.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.4%Karina Grokhovskaya: 3.6%Columbia Missourian: 5.0%Appeal to Emotion4.4%This article: 5.6%Karina Grokhovskaya: 1.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Begging the Question5.6%This article: 13.3%Karina Grokhovskaya: 9.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.3%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.6%Karina Grokhovskaya: 1.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Burden of Proof5.6%This article: 5.6%Karina Grokhovskaya: 1.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature5.6%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.4%Karina Grokhovskaya: 1.1%Columbia Missourian: 2.5%Anecdotal4.4%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 15.8%Karina Grokhovskaya: 4.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)15.8%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.3%Karina Grokhovskaya: 1.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Unattributed Quote5.3%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 2.7%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karina Grokhovskaya: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

360 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers51%attributed speech175writer words
Selected voice

Neil Schwartz

100%flagged-word coverage
156 attributed words84% of attributed speech35% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Unattributed Quote+12.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Neil Schwartz: 12.2%12.2%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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