4 ms·

Betting on sports teams takes some statistical knowledge and modeling -- there's some skill involved. Betting on random numbers takes no knowledge -- there's n

by csense 11y ago

Betting on sports teams takes some statistical knowledge and modeling -- there's some skill involved. Betting on random numbers takes no knowledge -- there's no skill involved. If the former is illegal and the latter is not just legal, but a business actually run by the state -- isn't this hypocritical?

dragonwriter 11y ago
> If the former is illegal and the latter is not just legal, but a business actually run by the state -- isn't this hypocritical? Both are generally illegal in most states in the US. That some states operate one while generally prohibiting it is not particularly odd; states often reserve the right to do things themselves that are generally prohibited.
kartan 11y ago
Gambling is usually a business run by states as it is like an extra voluntary tax. Usually the returns are lower than in private run lotteries to make it less appealing, so the final result is that it is heavily taxed. Also there are laws that limit how much advertisements you can do. Banning gambling doesn't looks like it works, people continues gambling in worst conditions. Letting the state control it allows for more control and it is less profit oriented as social issues are taken into account. I find it a really good solution to the problems that gambling has. And it allows people that does responsible gambling for fun to do it.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Letting the state control it allows for more control and it is less profit oriented as social issues are taken into account. In which ways do State-run lotteries take social issues differently than privately run ones? I'm not talking about the application of the lottery tax, as private lotteries could be taxes as well.
- douche 11y ago
  I see more advertisements for state-run scratch tickets, Meggabucks, and Powerball than I do for any other single organization's products. Worst, this crap caters and appeals exactly to the clientele that can least afford to light $10-$20 on fire as a habit.
- fennecfoxen 11y ago
  With state lotteries not just a matter of making available safe-ish gambling that's not controlled by organized crime and the like. It's also a matter of having the State spending millions of dollars advertising gambling at its citizens, reaching out to recruit new potential-gamblers from among the poorest citizens (+), promising them money beyond their wildest dreams, instead delivering them variable-reward reinforcement schedules (well known as the hardest addictions to quit) and a small extra dose of Poverty every time they're exercised. There is a massive conflict of interest if lotteries are to be evaluated as a solution for social ills. (+) Have you seen how many lottery advertisements there are in Whole Foods? Have you seen how many there are at a convenience store in a poor neighborhood, or on public transit, or the like?
Houshalter 11y ago
Lotteries were often created based on popular vote, not by lawmakers. The argument was that the profit would go to education (it didn't.)

by csense 11y ago

dragonwriter 11y ago

> If the former is illegal and the latter is not just legal, but a business actually run by the state -- isn't this hypocritical? Both are generally illegal in most states in the US. That some states operate one while generally prohibiting it is not particularly odd; states often reserve the right to do things themselves that are generally prohibited.

kartan 11y ago

Gambling is usually a business run by states as it is like an extra voluntary tax. Usually the returns are lower than in private run lotteries to make it less appealing, so the final result is that it is heavily taxed. Also there are laws that limit how much advertisements you can do. Banning gambling doesn't looks like it works, people continues gambling in worst conditions. Letting the state control it allows for more control and it is less profit oriented as social issues are taken into account. I find it a really good solution to the problems that gambling has. And it allows people that does responsible gambling for fun to do it.

icebraining 11y ago
Letting the state control it allows for more control and it is less profit oriented as social issues are taken into account. In which ways do State-run lotteries take social issues differently than privately run ones? I'm not talking about the application of the lottery tax, as private lotteries could be taxes as well.
douche 11y ago
I see more advertisements for state-run scratch tickets, Meggabucks, and Powerball than I do for any other single organization's products. Worst, this crap caters and appeals exactly to the clientele that can least afford to light $10-$20 on fire as a habit.
fennecfoxen 11y ago
With state lotteries not just a matter of making available safe-ish gambling that's not controlled by organized crime and the like. It's also a matter of having the State spending millions of dollars advertising gambling at its citizens, reaching out to recruit new potential-gamblers from among the poorest citizens (+), promising them money beyond their wildest dreams, instead delivering them variable-reward reinforcement schedules (well known as the hardest addictions to quit) and a small extra dose of Poverty every time they're exercised. There is a massive conflict of interest if lotteries are to be evaluated as a solution for social ills. (+) Have you seen how many lottery advertisements there are in Whole Foods? Have you seen how many there are at a convenience store in a poor neighborhood, or on public transit, or the like?

Houshalter 11y ago

Lotteries were often created based on popular vote, not by lawmakers. The argument was that the profit would go to education (it didn't.)