Easy way to increase popularity of chess -- introduce betting into tournaments

Every chess tournament, from scholastic juniors to the World Championship tournaments featuring Charles Magnus should have betting booths like at the racetrack where spectators can wager on who will win each game.  There can also be side bets offered.

I'm picturing something of a horse racetrack atmosphere, with the chess players in the pit, or perhaps something akin in the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, or even, for smaller venues, something like the Russian Roulette clubs of Saigon depicted in The Deer Hunter (1978).

This is a good way to increase the public's exposure to chess and will give the general public a stake in the sport.  

Sure, if it makes things easier.

dont think betting would happen on junior events , the "general public" wouldnt have knowledge on the abilities of the players to make wise investments, and betting on GM events is already available.

Translation:

Lets find more ways to cheat, cuz now money is really involved.

If anything, the monetary interest in third-party betting would ensure that less cheating takes place.

For the record, I'm talking about third-party betting on the results, not the players themselves betting.  That important distinction a is.

Chess does not have enough variance to make it a good game for gambling.

I trust you have more knowledge about the subject than I have (since I know very little).  Say, how is betting on chess different than betting on boxing?

Holding tournaments at strip clubs would also increase the popularity of chess. 

A few bookmakers offered odds on the recent WCC. This practice should just become more widespread (first to better known super-GM events like Tata Steel or Dortmund).

Variance in chess betting can be increased by offering odds on blitz and/or unusual variations where the skill gap is smaller.

The greater the variance the greater the chance that the inferior player can win a given particular game. Poker has a lot of variance, but in the long run, the better players win. That the inferior player can take a hand makes it better for gambliing.

This is still true for 3rd party betting. People will take the underdog in horse-racing or football, because the underdogs DO win sometimes. But in chess, a 300 point underdog will win too rarely for it to justify "betting on the "underdog" for most gamblers.

I do not know enough about boxing to comment on how much variance it has. I imagine quite a bit more.

The attraction and argument FOR betting on chess would be that it would be very easy to fix. The players make so little that the temptation to take the $$$ would be strong, and it is nearly impossible to prove that someone took a dive.

You can already bet on chess matches, including non-result bets such as the length of the game..

Boxing has a lot more variance than chess.  I've seen many fights where an underdog wins by landing a lucky punch.

The most basic question is whether increased popularity even matters.

Why wouldn't it???

Yes, I see your point, but why wouldn't it?

More popularity in chess will bring in more money and more opportunities to chess players.

I knew a knucklehead once that thought allowing alcohol and drugs at chess tournaments was a good way to get the public involved.  He's in rehab now.  Lets just be satisfied with chess without gimmicks.  John, do you need gamblers anonymous?

aaa

I know very little about modern chess tournaments and nothing about gambling, but it seems that such activities enrich everyone except for the unlucky betters and the actual participants.