3 ms·

Not sure when chance is considered gambling, I presume artificial chance? Does that include bitcin mining, the probability that your facebook post is visible f

Not sure when chance is considered gambling, I presume artificial chance? Does that include bitcin mining, the probability that your facebook post is visible for your friends, the probability that an advertisement is shown to a specific user, is sortition illegal?

baddox 9y ago
I assume that their definition of gambling also requires a payment to be sent to some party who is offering the probabilistic reward. I doubt that bitcoin mining and Facebook posting would qualify.
- anvandare 9y ago
  The gambling commission which made this report/recommendation apparently uses four criteria: (1) It's a game /* hello, Wittgenstein */ (2) There's a (financial) stake (3) The player can win or lose (i.e. they're not guaranteed a specific return) (4) An element of chance is involved
  - thaumasiotes 9y ago
    > It's a game /* hello, Wittgenstein */ This element is generally included more to avoid accidentally outlawing insurance and financial securities than out of an idea that fun is inherently evil. Which is to say, they don't care if something IS a game; they care that it ISN'T something they consider productive.
    - anvandare 9y ago
      Oh I understand why that's there, it's just another amusing instance of "I'll know it when I see it" [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
      - DoctorOetker 9y ago
        yes it is another instance of ad hoc after the fact "I know it when I see it". Since the problem does not affect me specifically (not a child nor a gamer, nor a parent of such a person) I can see why this seems ammusing in the sense that we see lawmmakers drown in their own rules again, even though I don't think it is amusing in general. In fact it bothers me, because I am very much against "void for vagueness" rules, while in this case it is very hard for me to formalize a general prinicple differentiating good and bad (although I consider a lot of the insurance stuff nonsense tbh...). If I had to formalize a principle, I think it would start from informed consent: i.e. a lottery ticket should define exactly the probability of each possible return scenario, and also the expectation value of the return. And then in order to legally buy lottery tickets you would need a non-expired certificate that proves you understand expectation value, where the certificate is issued after passing some automated exam say at the city hall. Just passing it once should not suffice to gamble the rest of your life after forgetting how expectation values work. In this way children, or uneducated adults, or elderly with dementia are prevented from gambling unless they "regularly" prove to society that they understand what an expectation value of return of 50% means (if you buy $1000 worth of lottery tickets with 50% expectation value, on average you get $500 dollar back, and that is already taking into account the cases you win the top prize), and how to calculate this in general... All the places where the tickets get sold would have to be mystery-shopper checked by the government so that if a place sells a ticket to a person without the valid certified status, they get a big fine. If the same was done for insurance etc, then at least the consumer can be said to have given informed consent to the transaction. But don't get surprised if suddenly a large part of the population stops different kinds of insurance, or at least systematically en masse switch to whoever has the best offer, putting pressure in order to get democratic pricing of insurance etc... Not just licenses for the gambling houses, but also for the gamblers, like driver licenses...
ozim 9y ago
It in the article states that you get monetary value out of it, so like in casino you exchange your tokens for money. In games you trade item from loot box, so someone will pay money. If it would be that you cannot exchange it to money it is quite ok.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

baddox 9y ago

I assume that their definition of gambling also requires a payment to be sent to some party who is offering the probabilistic reward. I doubt that bitcoin mining and Facebook posting would qualify.

anvandare 9y ago
The gambling commission which made this report/recommendation apparently uses four criteria: (1) It's a game /* hello, Wittgenstein */ (2) There's a (financial) stake (3) The player can win or lose (i.e. they're not guaranteed a specific return) (4) An element of chance is involved
- thaumasiotes 9y ago
  > It's a game /* hello, Wittgenstein */ This element is generally included more to avoid accidentally outlawing insurance and financial securities than out of an idea that fun is inherently evil. Which is to say, they don't care if something IS a game; they care that it ISN'T something they consider productive.
  - anvandare 9y ago
    Oh I understand why that's there, it's just another amusing instance of "I'll know it when I see it" [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
    - DoctorOetker 9y ago
      yes it is another instance of ad hoc after the fact "I know it when I see it". Since the problem does not affect me specifically (not a child nor a gamer, nor a parent of such a person) I can see why this seems ammusing in the sense that we see lawmmakers drown in their own rules again, even though I don't think it is amusing in general. In fact it bothers me, because I am very much against "void for vagueness" rules, while in this case it is very hard for me to formalize a general prinicple differentiating good and bad (although I consider a lot of the insurance stuff nonsense tbh...). If I had to formalize a principle, I think it would start from informed consent: i.e. a lottery ticket should define exactly the probability of each possible return scenario, and also the expectation value of the return. And then in order to legally buy lottery tickets you would need a non-expired certificate that proves you understand expectation value, where the certificate is issued after passing some automated exam say at the city hall. Just passing it once should not suffice to gamble the rest of your life after forgetting how expectation values work. In this way children, or uneducated adults, or elderly with dementia are prevented from gambling unless they "regularly" prove to society that they understand what an expectation value of return of 50% means (if you buy $1000 worth of lottery tickets with 50% expectation value, on average you get $500 dollar back, and that is already taking into account the cases you win the top prize), and how to calculate this in general... All the places where the tickets get sold would have to be mystery-shopper checked by the government so that if a place sells a ticket to a person without the valid certified status, they get a big fine. If the same was done for insurance etc, then at least the consumer can be said to have given informed consent to the transaction. But don't get surprised if suddenly a large part of the population stops different kinds of insurance, or at least systematically en masse switch to whoever has the best offer, putting pressure in order to get democratic pricing of insurance etc... Not just licenses for the gambling houses, but also for the gamblers, like driver licenses...

ozim 9y ago

It in the article states that you get monetary value out of it, so like in casino you exchange your tokens for money. In games you trade item from loot box, so someone will pay money. If it would be that you cannot exchange it to money it is quite ok.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]