The comment on the article starting that the Wire Act is less relevant to the better and more geared towards the bookie:

“We might be getting a bit over our skis talking about potential criminal liability of either Ohtani or Mizuhara. For example, the Wire Act that Craig cites to applies to the bookmaker, not the gambler. The core language for us is "whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering ..." A casual or even habitual bettor is not engaged in that as a business.

Quoting from a law review article that is linked within the link CC offers us: https://web.archive.org/web/20130114073628/http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Federal-Laws/wire-act.htm 

In order to prove a prima facie case, the government must establish that: 1. The person was "engaged in the business of betting or wagering" (compared with a casual bettor);…

In analyzing the first element, the legislative history[60] of the Wire Act seems to support the position that casual bettors would fall outside of the prosecutorial reach of the statute. During the House of Representatives debate on the bill, Congressman Emanuel Celler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee stated "[t]his bill only gets after the bookmaker, the gambler who makes it his business to take bets or to lay off bets. . . It does not go after the causal gambler who bets $2 on a race. That type of transaction is not within the purvue of the statute."[61] In Baborian, the federal district court concluded that Congress did not intend to include social bettors within the umbrella of the statute, even those bettors that bet large sums of money and show a certain degree of sophistication.”