4 ms·

>there hasn’t been a lot of VC action in the space, either on the platform side or on the content/services side Do "social" casinos count? Zynga is all over th

>there hasn’t been a lot of VC action in the space, either on the platform side or on the content/services side Do "social" casinos count? Zynga is all over that and went public in 2011, Big Fish was acquired by Aristocrat in 2017, and I'm sure there are others. If you throw ethics to the wind, there's no reason to make a real gambling app/service when you can give gamblers the same dopamine feedback loop without ever needing to pay them real money. Personally I think there's only so much time left for gambling (in lootboxes, social casinos, or even sports betting) before it gets shutdown by regulation. There's very little pragmatic argument for allowing it to exist in the first place, other than classic prohibition arguments like "personal freedom" and "black markets still exist." Valid, but I think the harm of industrialized gambling through digital platforms outweighs the benefit of taxing it and allowing a black market to exist, but that's just me.

merpnderp 7y ago
I’d say it’s a simple argument. Letting adults make bad decisions is preferable to sending guys with guns to stop them and throw people in jail for doing something they voluntarily want to do. Perhaps the people who would have wasted their money gambling instead invest in the stock market, but more likely they’ll piss it away on something although maybe something you find less offensive.
- holy_city 7y ago
  I'm not saying a drug-war like approach is the best method here, just that some degree of prohibition that prevents industrialized gambling is better than none. For example, even in a fair game the house will eventually take a gambler's bankroll provided the house's bankroll is practically infinite [1]. That's a thought experiment, but it works in practice when you are dealing with gambling addicts that won't walk away from the table. Secondly, those gambling addicts, or "whales" as they call them represent something like 0.15% of players bring in 50% of the revenue [2]. And lastly, I would have agreed with you a few months ago, before I heard this story [3] on NPR about how Big Fish was targeting people and using predatory practices to keep them on the game. It reminded me of a twisted version of AOL's customer retention practices that they were sued for a decade ago. There's also the whole notion of casinos/gambling disproportionately impacting low income communities and how you can't start a gambling business without tons of capital, so it serves as an efficient funnel of money from the poor to the rich. And it's really naive to think that someone going broke affects that person alone. God help them if they have a family. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_ruin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_ruin [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/03/01/why-its-scary-when-0-15-mobile-gamers-bring-in-50-of-the-revenue/#5814fd9f4065 https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/03/01/why-its-s... [3] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-social-casinos-leverage-facebook-user-data-to-target-vulnerable-gamblers https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-social-casinos-leverag...
  - merpnderp 7y ago
    I'm with you except I'm not so sure those .15% of players wouldn't blow their money on something different. In my state, casinos are the sole purview of Native tribes, and those whales pay for a lot of tribal services for people in need. Which just struck me as a perfect point for your argument. So I guess I'm smelling what you're cooking.

merpnderp 7y ago

I’d say it’s a simple argument. Letting adults make bad decisions is preferable to sending guys with guns to stop them and throw people in jail for doing something they voluntarily want to do. Perhaps the people who would have wasted their money gambling instead invest in the stock market, but more likely they’ll piss it away on something although maybe something you find less offensive.

holy_city 7y ago
I'm not saying a drug-war like approach is the best method here, just that some degree of prohibition that prevents industrialized gambling is better than none. For example, even in a fair game the house will eventually take a gambler's bankroll provided the house's bankroll is practically infinite [1]. That's a thought experiment, but it works in practice when you are dealing with gambling addicts that won't walk away from the table. Secondly, those gambling addicts, or "whales" as they call them represent something like 0.15% of players bring in 50% of the revenue [2]. And lastly, I would have agreed with you a few months ago, before I heard this story [3] on NPR about how Big Fish was targeting people and using predatory practices to keep them on the game. It reminded me of a twisted version of AOL's customer retention practices that they were sued for a decade ago. There's also the whole notion of casinos/gambling disproportionately impacting low income communities and how you can't start a gambling business without tons of capital, so it serves as an efficient funnel of money from the poor to the rich. And it's really naive to think that someone going broke affects that person alone. God help them if they have a family. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_ruin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_ruin [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/03/01/why-its-scary-when-0-15-mobile-gamers-bring-in-50-of-the-revenue/#5814fd9f4065 https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/03/01/why-its-s... [3] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-social-casinos-leverage-facebook-user-data-to-target-vulnerable-gamblers https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-social-casinos-leverag...
- merpnderp 7y ago
  I'm with you except I'm not so sure those .15% of players wouldn't blow their money on something different. In my state, casinos are the sole purview of Native tribes, and those whales pay for a lot of tribal services for people in need. Which just struck me as a perfect point for your argument. So I guess I'm smelling what you're cooking.