4 ms·

> "It turns out if the seller publishes some list of probabilities and lies about them, the seller can make significantly more money," Elmachtoub said. Perhaps

by piker 7y ago

> "It turns out if the seller publishes some list of probabilities and lies about them, the seller can make significantly more money," Elmachtoub said. Perhaps contrary to the author's point, the ability to reap rewards by defrauding players regarding probabilities of payouts seems to imply some rationality in purchasing the loot boxes. > "There is a benefit for lying. Since there's a benefit for lying, there must be regulation around this." In all things there is often a short-term benefit to be derived from lying. It doesn't necessarily then follow that "there must be regulation around" all things.

pjc50 7y ago
Obtaining money by deception is already regulated: it's fraud. People publishing deliberately inaccurate lootbox odds should be prosecuted and given, at the very least, a criminal record and large fine.
- falcolas 7y ago
  Here's a question - if you have 1 in 1,000, or 1 in 1M odds of getting a specific item, is it acceptable to list those odds as "<1%"? That's what occurs today when companies are forced to reveal rates. It's misleading at best.
  - cma 7y ago
    If "<1%" is so successful in misleading people and increasing sales, why wouldn't they just do it without the regulation requiring it?
    - falcolas 7y ago
      > why wouldn't they just do it without the regulation requiring it Likely because it has a negligable effect, and it's harder to do than not to do. Does a gambler stop gambling despite knowing their odds of beating the house are less than 1%?
      - cma 7y ago
        If it is a negligible effect, then it shouldn't matter much if regulation requires notice and it has negligible effect either. Seems like a non-issue.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- michaelt 7y ago
  Part of the reason gambling is particularly regulated is because the random nature of payouts can make fraud undetectable to the victim. It's not like I could play the Powerball lottery enough times to prove jackpots pay out at the advertised rates. If the draw was conducted on some opaque, unauditable remote server, they could fiddle the draw so jackpots over half a billion dollars all went to the CEO, and it'd be undetectable.
  - nybble41 7y ago
    > It's not like I could play the Powerball lottery enough times to prove jackpots pay out at the advertised rates. You don't have to play the lottery yourself to analyze the results. (Not that anyone participating in a state lottery is paying much attention to the odds... if they cared about that they'd take their money to an actual casino where the house takes a much smaller cut.) > they could fiddle the draw so jackpots over half a billion dollars all went to the CEO, and it'd be undetectable It might be undetectable once. Even twice might be written off as coincidence by some, though many would rightfully be convinced it was rigged and stop playing. Sure it's not impossible for that to happen by chance, but the probability of the CEO winning multiple large jackpots is remote. Anyway, most lotteries and the like bar their own employees and close associates from participating; their business rests entirely on their reputation for fair play and they can't afford that kind of conflict of interest. There are algorithms which can be used to generate provably random results. For example: Pick a random 256-bit seed and announce the hash of that seed to the public. Wait for six blocks to be mined on the Bitcoin blockchain and then announce the seed. The random result is determined apply a predetermined formula to the hash of the seed value plus the blocks mined during that interval. The lottery operator has to choose the seed before they know which blocks will be mined, and the miners don't know what the seed value is until after the fact, so no one has the ability to influence the result.
falcolas 7y ago
> It doesn't necessarily then follow that "there must be regulation around" all things. The industry has proven that it can't regulate itself. The consumers can't push back against it, because the industry is becoming self-sufficient by only preying on a small minority of the users and doesn't appear to care about the others. What's the logical next step that isn't regulation?

by piker 7y ago

pjc50 7y ago

Obtaining money by deception is already regulated: it's fraud. People publishing deliberately inaccurate lootbox odds should be prosecuted and given, at the very least, a criminal record and large fine.

falcolas 7y ago
Here's a question - if you have 1 in 1,000, or 1 in 1M odds of getting a specific item, is it acceptable to list those odds as "<1%"? That's what occurs today when companies are forced to reveal rates. It's misleading at best.
- cma 7y ago
  If "<1%" is so successful in misleading people and increasing sales, why wouldn't they just do it without the regulation requiring it?
  - falcolas 7y ago
    > why wouldn't they just do it without the regulation requiring it Likely because it has a negligable effect, and it's harder to do than not to do. Does a gambler stop gambling despite knowing their odds of beating the house are less than 1%?
    - cma 7y ago
      If it is a negligible effect, then it shouldn't matter much if regulation requires notice and it has negligible effect either. Seems like a non-issue.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
michaelt 7y ago
Part of the reason gambling is particularly regulated is because the random nature of payouts can make fraud undetectable to the victim. It's not like I could play the Powerball lottery enough times to prove jackpots pay out at the advertised rates. If the draw was conducted on some opaque, unauditable remote server, they could fiddle the draw so jackpots over half a billion dollars all went to the CEO, and it'd be undetectable.
- nybble41 7y ago
  > It's not like I could play the Powerball lottery enough times to prove jackpots pay out at the advertised rates. You don't have to play the lottery yourself to analyze the results. (Not that anyone participating in a state lottery is paying much attention to the odds... if they cared about that they'd take their money to an actual casino where the house takes a much smaller cut.) > they could fiddle the draw so jackpots over half a billion dollars all went to the CEO, and it'd be undetectable It might be undetectable once. Even twice might be written off as coincidence by some, though many would rightfully be convinced it was rigged and stop playing. Sure it's not impossible for that to happen by chance, but the probability of the CEO winning multiple large jackpots is remote. Anyway, most lotteries and the like bar their own employees and close associates from participating; their business rests entirely on their reputation for fair play and they can't afford that kind of conflict of interest. There are algorithms which can be used to generate provably random results. For example: Pick a random 256-bit seed and announce the hash of that seed to the public. Wait for six blocks to be mined on the Bitcoin blockchain and then announce the seed. The random result is determined apply a predetermined formula to the hash of the seed value plus the blocks mined during that interval. The lottery operator has to choose the seed before they know which blocks will be mined, and the miners don't know what the seed value is until after the fact, so no one has the ability to influence the result.

falcolas 7y ago

> It doesn't necessarily then follow that "there must be regulation around" all things. The industry has proven that it can't regulate itself. The consumers can't push back against it, because the industry is becoming self-sufficient by only preying on a small minority of the users and doesn't appear to care about the others. What's the logical next step that isn't regulation?