Rick Tocchet, a veteran hockey coach with a long history in the NHL, became entangled in an illegal gambling operation run through Arizona-based bookies. Tocchet himself did not operate the ring; he participated in it, directing bets and facilitating transactions.
The operation was revealed when law enforcement in Arizona (investigating the broader bookmaking network) identified Tocchet's involvement. The NHL conducted its own investigation and determined Tocchet had violated the league's gambling policies.
The penalty: a 40-game suspension and a 250,000 dollar fine.
The Economics of the Situation
Tocchet's situation is economically interesting because it shows a rational actor (a person with wealth, status, and professional stability) making an irrational decision (participating in an illegal gambling ring).
Why would Tocchet risk his career and reputation for gambling involvement? The economic answer is that he discounted the probability of getting caught. He calculated: the expected value of my bets minus the expected cost of penalties if discovered.
He was wrong about the expected cost. The NHL's enforcement is stricter than the probability implied.
The Regulatory Environment
The NHL has a zero-tolerance gambling policy. Players and staff are prohibited from gambling on any professional sports event. Violation results in suspension.
This is not new policy. This has been in force for decades. Tocchet, as a coach, would have been familiar with these rules.
Yet he chose to participate in gambling anyway, in an illegal ring, which multiplies the regulatory risk (not just league penalty, but potential federal charges for participating in illegal bookmaking).
The Time Preference Angle
From an Austrian economics perspective, Tocchet's decision reveals a high time preference. He valued the immediate gratification of gambling (and the possibility of short-term financial gain) over the delayed but certain penalty of discovery.
A person with low time preference would have calculated: the sure cost of suspension and fine greatly exceeds any gambling winnings I could generate. Therefore, the optimal choice is to abstain.
Tocchet's time preference was apparently high. He preferred the immediate engagement of gambling to the future penalty.
The Subjective Value Problem
Another Austrian lens: Tocchet presumably valued his coaching career and reputation very highly (objectively, they were worth millions). Yet his revealed preference (participating in illegal gambling) suggests he valued the gambling engagement more than he valued the protection of those assets.
This is the core insight: stated values and revealed values diverged. Tocchet said his coaching career was paramount. His actions revealed that gambling was more important.
The Penalty Was Recoverable
Unlike a permanent lifetime ban, a 40-game suspension is roughly 24% of an NHL season. Tocchet could return. The fine, while substantial, was not catastrophic for a coach earning millions.
Tocchet's expected value calculation was not completely irrational. But it was wrong about the NHL's enforcement intensity.
The Regulatory Asymmetry
Legal sports betting has expanded enormously. Nevada, New Jersey, and many other states now permit it. DraftKings, FanDuel, and others operate legally.
Yet the NHL maintains a total ban on all gambling by employees.
This asymmetry is intentional. The league wants to preserve the integrity of games by ensuring that those with inside information cannot profit from betting. The expansion of legal betting does not change this calculation.
Tocchet's error was believing that the expansion of legal betting implied the league's ban had loosened. It hadn't.
The Takeaway
Tocchet's case shows that even professional athletes with high salaries and stable employment can make economically irrational decisions when they discount the probability of discovery.
The cost of regulatory violation (in terms of reputation, opportunity, and cash) should dwarf the expected winnings from any gambling activity. In Tocchet's case, it obviously should have.
But his revealed preference suggests he was gambling not for financial return, but for the satisfaction of the activity itself. That transforms the economic calculus entirely. Hobbies are rationally engaged in even when they have negative expected value, provided the subjective value of the activity outweighs the cost.
Tocchet's mistake was not gambling (the economics of which are neutral if the utility is high enough). His mistake was gambling illegally in an environment where the penalty was known and severe.
Wings for this entry
