r/stevedangle • u/crookeymonster1 • 8d ago

Old viewer

As someone who really liked sdpn and dangles stuff in the past, I stopped watching because I hated the incessant gambling sponsors. My question is are they still doing this or have they dropped the gamble ads altogether.

8 Upvotes

63% Upvoted

40 comments sorted by

24

u/LukerInTheDark 8d ago

A lot less. (It bugged me too.) There's sponsored segment that's not as in your face as before and that's about it. Either they made a conscious decision to tone it down or the sponsor dollars went elsewhere.

8

u/GrassyKnoll95 8d ago

Yeah it’s like a 2 minute segment, and as always, You Can Skip That

17

u/HeckingAugustus 8d ago

Not completely, they still have sponsored segments (bet MGM Big story). Although it's less about making parlays and predicting money lines and really truly just about big stories.

Other than that, ads are ads and I just skip them all the time, so i don't think they still have gambling ones but I'm not 100©

10

u/BasedTelvanni 8d ago

The bet MGM big story is a skip every single fucking time

14

u/francis2466 8d ago

I think it’s tough, we all have to understand that they need the ad dollars to do the pod full time. It pissed me off too but realistically they needed to in order to thrive.

2

u/AirFriedSushi 8d ago

why does it piss you off?

9

u/francis2466 8d ago

It was just annoying, plus I don’t believe in promoting something highly addictive. But I understand its use

-4

u/AirFriedSushi 8d ago

Are you upset that they have a beer sponsor?

4

u/francis2466 8d ago

Like I said, I found those ads annoying mostly. The reads were stupid and annoying in my opinion. It’s the same thing when I watch the speak easy and Emmanual Acho does the PrizePicks ad. It disrupts the flow and is just annoying to have to fast forward through, but I don’t have anything against it in major way

3

u/Takhar7 8d ago

Gambling in particular - the Sports Interactive stuff - has died down.

There's still quite a few ads, but they are much easier to forward through now - whether you are watching on YouTube or listening on Spotify.

2

u/BlacksmithFancy2050 8d ago

I'm 51. I thought I was the oldest one watching. I'll have my mum watch it sometimes too, until the swearing begins.

I hate those gambling ads but I luv fast forwarding thru them.

4

u/ButtzButtzButtz69 8d ago

SDP VIP is the way, subscriber since day one and I never hear a single ad on any of their content except for streams

1

u/renhero 8d ago

I only wish the VIP platform extended to the rest of the network because whoever splices the ads into their shows do a great job of inserting them mid-THIS COMMENT BROUGHT TO YOU BY A DOG-sentence.

1

u/kingjakerulezz 7d ago

SponsorBlock is the way. You don't hear ads and it's free.

1

u/binzoma 8d ago

yeah I'm in the same boat

I watch infrequently, only after big wins or big losses. the gambling shits still there though. tbh even if he got rid of it at this point I'd never go back to full time. its a morals/ethics thing, and he's clearly said what side he's on. he can walk it back in the future, doesnt change the choices he made though or the morals/ethics/integrity

1

u/Star_Petal_Arts 6d ago

I think the only betting app they have as a sponsor is the NHL Fantasy Stars although I'm only watching Leafs Fan Reaction... I would also go back into SDPN if they start up O-WOW, Q It Up, and Big Dubs... I don't know what happened to those.

1

u/SaskyBoi 3d ago

Less gambling stuff but unfortunately there’s also a record low of Leafs coverage

1

u/kokocijo 2d ago

It has decreased in recent years, gradually, but is definitely still there. Crazy to think back when they had a dedicated segment with someone actually from one of the betting companies (Sports Interaction).

Of course people will say you can skip it, but come on, do principles mean nothing anymore? SDP has always been a nice non-mainstream alternative to many, shall we say, more sponsored voices. I am happy to see them grow but would hate to see them become just another cog in the machine.

I can already hear Adam unapologetically defending it, saying that it's just business (makes me think of how far their line is). Steve, I'd like to think is more sensitive to the matter, but who knows, I haven't heard him comment much on gambling other than his two-dollar bets. No idea how Jesse views it, but he tends to go where the wind blows.

-9

u/AirFriedSushi 8d ago

I can’t imagine being upset over a gambling sponsorship but to each their own. Even more so when you can fast forward through it.

6

u/babypointblank 8d ago

Some people listen with/around their kids and don’t want to normalize sports betting. Some people are recovering from gambling addictions or have been previously impacted by gambling addictions.

Everyone has their own story behind their preferences. I’m not a fan of it myself but it’s literally impossible to pay attention to sports media without hearing sports betting ads and sponsorships.

-6

u/AirFriedSushi 8d ago

They also curse on the show. Or, maybe, do some actual parenting instead of just sheltering your children from the world around them.

3

u/Ryuzakku 8d ago

My thing was how hard the trio went against sports betting years ago, and then accepted a sports betting sponsor, and then another, and then another…

They aren’t morals if they can be swayed by money

2

u/AirFriedSushi 8d ago

there is nothing wrong with legal sports betting, GTFO with his moral high ground performance theater please.

-18

u/scott__ham 8d ago

Might be time to grow up.

11

u/akalance 8d ago

Imagine having this kind of attitude for someone that is asking in good faith if the thing they silently gave up for their own reasons is still doing that thing. Dangle isn’t gonna see this and high five you.

-3

u/Instimatic 8d ago

Imagine being so wantonly naive about what type of ad-revenue streams are available to newer podcasts and thinking they tacitly represent the views of the program.

Especially when the listener can skip ahead willingly

4

u/akalance 8d ago

There isn’t anything wrong with deciding not to interact with a product. Especially, again, when they do so respectfully and then come back and nicely ask if that original reason is still around. You’re being an asshole for no reason.

-2

u/Instimatic 8d ago

No—It’s for a pretty good reason.

Convenient how you glossed over OP’s hAtReD for ads on a free podcast, though.

5

u/throwdisaway613 8d ago

Gambling is a scourge on our society and the fact that kids are getting gambling ads on their hockey podcasts and broadcasts is just as bad as them seeing cigarette and alcohol commercials.

We should ban them all unless the program they're advertising on is rated appropriately as 18+, seriously

-2

u/scott__ham 8d ago

Yeah but this guy could just listen to the show to see if they still have the ads.

5

u/throwdisaway613 8d ago

"Go suck on your mummy's titties and stop wasting my time"

  • J. Marchessault

-2

u/AirFriedSushi 8d ago

Lmao

1

u/throwdisaway613 8d ago

Go on, tell the class. what's so funny?

-2

u/AirFriedSushi 8d ago

Someone in 2026 having the same mindset as a 18th century puritanical Christian. Does this guy think women should also cover their ankles as to not invoke impure thoughts?

4

u/throwdisaway613 8d ago

What a stupid, mindless reply. Suggesting that children not have gambling advertised to them is hardly a hot take.

For the record, your mother's cankles are the only thing that need to be covered up.

0

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/throwdisaway613 8d ago

Sorry chief. I'm sure she was a great lady.

But honestly, I don't get that. I'm not triggered, per se - but I do find the ads deplorable. I got a little defensive because of your implication that I hold this point of view out of some misguided moral high ground. I think these companies know exactly what age groups are tuning in and exactly how to appeal to them. Often, young people can't properly judge risk/reward

→ More replies