5 ms·

This is exactly my point. I'm not against outlawing casinos (i think you should be able to do pretty much whatever the eff you want with your body and money).

This is exactly my point. I'm not against outlawing casinos (i think you should be able to do pretty much whatever the eff you want with your body and money). BUT if we are going to allow them, should we allow them to only let people play when they lose? The decision to let them exist is as arbitrary as the decision to allow them to only play when they when.

Pet_Ant 5y ago
>([I] think you should be able to do pretty much whatever the eff you want with your body and money). ... The decision to let the exist is as arbitrary as the decision to allow them to only play when they [win]. How do you square that with giving people autonomy? You can do what you want with your money, but you can't play if you don't feel like you are gonna win... there is an inherent contradiction there.
- hillbillydilly 5y ago
  its the classic hn libertarian take. empowered teens with freedom technology, saying one thing (body autonomy, no regs!) but, actually with regulations they're just smarter regulations cause I'm smart
- handoflixue 5y ago
  > How do you square that with giving people autonomy? The Libertarian Free Market answer is that both parties need to be fully informed. Casinos would be required to post maximum win rates and otherwise fully detail their "we throw out anyone that wins" policy up-front, in a clear and easily understood format. If the casino writes a bad, exploitable policy, they go bankrupt being exploited and this encourages future casinos to do better.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    I'm not familiar with libertarians who are uncomfortable with hidden information. In fact, the ones I know would consider requiring casinos to post such information to be government intrusion.
  - noxvilleza 5y ago
    The maximum win rates part is normally clear by the game (for example, for Roulette or Blackjack you can see odds) or otherwise regulated by local/government laws (e.g. for games of pure chance like slot machines). > and otherwise fully detail their "we throw out anyone that wins" policy up-front They can just ask the gambler to leave the premises - I cannot imagine some 'libertarian free market' solution which would force casinos to allow anyone to enter the premises and gamble (provided it's not clear discrimination). Being able to count cards isn't some sort of protected class, right?
    - handoflixue 5y ago
      > The maximum win rates part is normally clear by the game (for example, for Roulette or Blackjack you can see odds) That's the AVERAGE win rate. The maximum win rate is "if you make more than $10,000 in profit, we'll throw you out", and I've never heard of that being made explicit. The point is that if you're going to throw out people who win more than a certain amount, you're not actually offering a fair game. There are secret rules that you haven't been told, and they very clearly bias your overall odds. You certainly shouldn't be able to advertise "you could win big!" if your policies make that impossible. --- There's clearly precent in other industries, too: If a grocery store advertises a sale on milk, they have certain obligations to offer a rain check if they run out. "According to the Fair Business Practices Act, it is unfair or deceptive if a store advertises goods without intending to sell them or to provide reasonable amounts of the advertised products without providing notice that supplies are limited." Casinos are advertising the chance to "win big" but have no intention of ever actually paying out.
      - HWR_14 5y ago
        Casinos are just fine with big payouts. They know if you run a lottery, you're going to write some checks. And besides, winners are great PR. They are not fine with playing a game that does not advantage them.
      - noxvilleza 5y ago
        > That's the AVERAGE win rate. I thought that they were suggesting it's ~ the average winrate given optimal play.
- gnopgnip 5y ago
  If you are a business open to the public, you can't discriminate based on gambling skill the same way you can't discriminate against other types of customers.
  - maerF0x0 5y ago
    Gambling skill isnt a protected class
    - gnopgnip 5y ago
      This was a reply to the parent comment about how such a law would work, not what the status quo is. And Atlantic City casinos can’t legally kick out card counters
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    FTFY: If you are a business open to the public, you can discriminate based on gambling skill the same way you can discriminate against other types of customers, so long as the basis is not a legally protected class enumerated in public accommodations law (for most businesses), or the specific law applicable to your business (for businesses in industries with indistry-specific anti-discrimination law instead of being subject to general public accommodation law.)
renlo 5y ago
Found it amusing reading this thread, thinking of gambling companies paying their lawyers to argue that gambling is "skilled based". Then, after gambling is legalized, they'd ban all of the skilled players so we'd go back to "luck based" gambling that their lawyers just argued was skilled based.
- bruce511 5y ago
  You don't go back to luck based, you stay skilled based, but the only skilled player in the room is the house. Baseball is a game of skill. So assume the Yankees could ban every skilled player who beat them. They make bank beating little-league rookies. It makes sense to keep the competition at that skill level. Obviously we're referring to games like Blackjack here, not roulette, which are not purely random.

Pet_Ant 5y ago

>([I] think you should be able to do pretty much whatever the eff you want with your body and money). ... The decision to let the exist is as arbitrary as the decision to allow them to only play when they [win]. How do you square that with giving people autonomy? You can do what you want with your money, but you can't play if you don't feel like you are gonna win... there is an inherent contradiction there.

hillbillydilly 5y ago
its the classic hn libertarian take. empowered teens with freedom technology, saying one thing (body autonomy, no regs!) but, actually with regulations they're just smarter regulations cause I'm smart
handoflixue 5y ago
> How do you square that with giving people autonomy? The Libertarian Free Market answer is that both parties need to be fully informed. Casinos would be required to post maximum win rates and otherwise fully detail their "we throw out anyone that wins" policy up-front, in a clear and easily understood format. If the casino writes a bad, exploitable policy, they go bankrupt being exploited and this encourages future casinos to do better.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  I'm not familiar with libertarians who are uncomfortable with hidden information. In fact, the ones I know would consider requiring casinos to post such information to be government intrusion.
- noxvilleza 5y ago
  The maximum win rates part is normally clear by the game (for example, for Roulette or Blackjack you can see odds) or otherwise regulated by local/government laws (e.g. for games of pure chance like slot machines). > and otherwise fully detail their "we throw out anyone that wins" policy up-front They can just ask the gambler to leave the premises - I cannot imagine some 'libertarian free market' solution which would force casinos to allow anyone to enter the premises and gamble (provided it's not clear discrimination). Being able to count cards isn't some sort of protected class, right?
  - handoflixue 5y ago
    > The maximum win rates part is normally clear by the game (for example, for Roulette or Blackjack you can see odds) That's the AVERAGE win rate. The maximum win rate is "if you make more than $10,000 in profit, we'll throw you out", and I've never heard of that being made explicit. The point is that if you're going to throw out people who win more than a certain amount, you're not actually offering a fair game. There are secret rules that you haven't been told, and they very clearly bias your overall odds. You certainly shouldn't be able to advertise "you could win big!" if your policies make that impossible. --- There's clearly precent in other industries, too: If a grocery store advertises a sale on milk, they have certain obligations to offer a rain check if they run out. "According to the Fair Business Practices Act, it is unfair or deceptive if a store advertises goods without intending to sell them or to provide reasonable amounts of the advertised products without providing notice that supplies are limited." Casinos are advertising the chance to "win big" but have no intention of ever actually paying out.
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      Casinos are just fine with big payouts. They know if you run a lottery, you're going to write some checks. And besides, winners are great PR. They are not fine with playing a game that does not advantage them.
    - noxvilleza 5y ago
      > That's the AVERAGE win rate. I thought that they were suggesting it's ~ the average winrate given optimal play.
gnopgnip 5y ago
If you are a business open to the public, you can't discriminate based on gambling skill the same way you can't discriminate against other types of customers.
- maerF0x0 5y ago
  Gambling skill isnt a protected class
  - gnopgnip 5y ago
    This was a reply to the parent comment about how such a law would work, not what the status quo is. And Atlantic City casinos can’t legally kick out card counters
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  FTFY: If you are a business open to the public, you can discriminate based on gambling skill the same way you can discriminate against other types of customers, so long as the basis is not a legally protected class enumerated in public accommodations law (for most businesses), or the specific law applicable to your business (for businesses in industries with indistry-specific anti-discrimination law instead of being subject to general public accommodation law.)

renlo 5y ago

Found it amusing reading this thread, thinking of gambling companies paying their lawyers to argue that gambling is "skilled based". Then, after gambling is legalized, they'd ban all of the skilled players so we'd go back to "luck based" gambling that their lawyers just argued was skilled based.

bruce511 5y ago
You don't go back to luck based, you stay skilled based, but the only skilled player in the room is the house. Baseball is a game of skill. So assume the Yankees could ban every skilled player who beat them. They make bank beating little-league rookies. It makes sense to keep the competition at that skill level. Obviously we're referring to games like Blackjack here, not roulette, which are not purely random.