4 ms·

I think the idea is that if you legalize games of chance and have them run by the state, the rules are at least fair and there is some level of oversight that p

by exelius 11y ago

I think the idea is that if you legalize games of chance and have them run by the state, the rules are at least fair and there is some level of oversight that prevents people from being completely taken advantage of. The games of chance are still fundamentally unfair, but it's a 60/40 kind of unfair instead of 80/20. In the absence of state lotteries, people with gambling problems would just find another way to gamble that supports organized crime rather than the state.

jacquesm 11y ago
> I think the idea is that if you legalize games of chance and have them run by the state, the rules are at least fair and there is some level of oversight that prevents people from being completely taken advantage of. In NL we just had a huge scandal with the legal lottery being essentially a rigged game with far less chance of paying out than they would have you believe. (This does not affect me because I've never put a red cent towards a lottery but I can see how those that felt that the state could be trusted in this respect feel more than a little let down).
bweitzman 11y ago
It's kind of the opposite actually, if you have a state lottery, there's not really any incentive to make the payout rates favorable. Whereas if you have multiple competing lottery companies then hopefully they would be forced to have reasonable payouts at the risk of having customers go to their competitors. Of course they would have to be regulated, the mob will just do whatever they want.
tsotha 11y ago
>I think the idea is that if you legalize games of chance and have them run by the state, the rules are at least fair and there is some level of oversight that prevents people from being completely taken advantage of. In California the mob "numbers racket" had a better payout (as a percentage of ticket sales) than the state lottery does.
- exelius 11y ago
  Yeah, but the state also isn't going around breaking peoples' legs because they can't pay.
  - tsotha 11y ago
    Even the mob takes lottery ticket money up front. That's not really an issue unless you're borrowing from them to play. But if you're borrowing to play you could just as easily be borrowing for the state lottery.

by exelius 11y ago

jacquesm 11y ago

> I think the idea is that if you legalize games of chance and have them run by the state, the rules are at least fair and there is some level of oversight that prevents people from being completely taken advantage of. In NL we just had a huge scandal with the legal lottery being essentially a rigged game with far less chance of paying out than they would have you believe. (This does not affect me because I've never put a red cent towards a lottery but I can see how those that felt that the state could be trusted in this respect feel more than a little let down).

bweitzman 11y ago

It's kind of the opposite actually, if you have a state lottery, there's not really any incentive to make the payout rates favorable. Whereas if you have multiple competing lottery companies then hopefully they would be forced to have reasonable payouts at the risk of having customers go to their competitors. Of course they would have to be regulated, the mob will just do whatever they want.

tsotha 11y ago

>I think the idea is that if you legalize games of chance and have them run by the state, the rules are at least fair and there is some level of oversight that prevents people from being completely taken advantage of. In California the mob "numbers racket" had a better payout (as a percentage of ticket sales) than the state lottery does.

exelius 11y ago
Yeah, but the state also isn't going around breaking peoples' legs because they can't pay.
- tsotha 11y ago
  Even the mob takes lottery ticket money up front. That's not really an issue unless you're borrowing from them to play. But if you're borrowing to play you could just as easily be borrowing for the state lottery.