3 ms·

>I think it's a good thing that gambling has been legalized and brought out the shadows. Why? It has increased the transfer of wealth from the poor to the wea

>I think it's a good thing that gambling has been legalized and brought out the shadows. Why? It has increased the transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy and heightened poverty while providing nothing of value you can't get from a game that's not for stakes. What social problems was underground betting actually causing? Was there actually some huge strain on police resources? Is it really a god thing that instead of a small number of gamblers being bankrupted by some shady characters, a much larger number are bankrupted by Disney? At least loan sharks and thugs put more money back into the local economy and small businesses.

soperj 3y ago
> What social problems was underground betting actually causing? Underground betting funds organized crime.
- listenallyall 3y ago
  Primarily, the crime of bookmaking, so it's a circular argument.
  - soperj 3y ago
    Very doubtful that all the money accrued from underground gambling goes into more underground gambling.
    - listenallyall 3y ago
      Mafia rings that make money from bookmaking and then also deal in drugs, prostitution, protection rackets, etc have been nearly eliminated and live on today primarily due to Hollywood, The Sopranos, etc.
  - vkou 3y ago
    Mob bookies kill other bookies who encroach on their turf.
    - faeriechangling 3y ago
      So the harm is shifted from the gambling addicts to the people exploiting them is what you're saying?
      - vkou 3y ago
        That's like saying that the only harm of a drug war is to the street dealers. All things being equal, I'd rather not live in a town where organized groups of people have a strong profit motive to pop their competition off.
        faeriechangling 3y ago
        I won't deny that underground gambling has all sorts of collateral damage, I just don't think that Disney causes far more collateral damage than these criminals ever did just in a non-violent way. They're less thuggish, more Bernie Madoff in their effects on society. I sincerely and strongly believe legal gambling causes far more harm than criminals ever did. The reason gambling gets legalised is not because legalised gambling reduces harm. It's because legalised gambling can balance the books for some politician before the next election, because they can sell it as being "pro-fun", because gamblers themselves will vote for them, and because the harms are abstract, diffuse, and blamed on the gamblers themselves.
        xp84 3y ago
        One of the oldest debates in government imho... yes, vices are bad. Yes, they're also human nature. Yes, prohibition is problematic, yes, decriminalization also has tradeoffs. There aren't any "correct" positions on these. It's just a game of moving around the harms.
        kwhitefoot 3y ago
        We have seen immense harm from legal gambling in the UK since it was liberalised some years ago, far more than any illegal gambling ever caused in the UK. Whether that is also true of the US I can't say but I suspect that it is true to some extent.
beardedetim 3y ago
> while providing nothing of value you can't get from a game that's not for stakes. When I play poker, I don't get the same fun value when it's for nothing but the clay chips or even if it's for $2 total win (_when playing for pennies_). The _fun_ for me is when it's a $20+ decision, the _fun_ for me is to play against other people where the decision they have to make has _weight_ to it. I think that there is _fun_ to be had when you're playing for stakes that cannot be had when you're playing for nothing. When I throw the dice, it's not _fun_ to see if it lands on a 7 or 11 or whatever the rules of craps are. The _fun_ for me is the betting, the winning or losing of the money. If I just wanted to see who could get a set of numbers from random dice rolls without money involved, I'd play Yahtzee. I agree that _some people_ shouldn't gamble because it's not _fun_ but an _addiction_. Just like _some people_ probably shouldn't drink because it's not _fun_ but an _addiction_ or shouldn't smoke weed because it's not _fun_ but _addicting_. That doesn't mean that there is _no value_ being added to the people's lives that _find it fun_ and don't find it _addicting_. We may disagree on if _fun_ is of any value to people vs the harm that that _fun_ might give them and I think we both agree we should make it _really clear_ the consequences of the _fun_ someone chooses to have. But I disagree that gambling adds _no value_ whatsoever or the idea that what I find is of no value means that everyone should agree it adds no value. Let the players have their fun, tax the shit out of it, and offer help to those that have an addiction to it, just like smoking or drinking or anything else that we as a society have deemed not illegal but not directly beneficial.
- korse 3y ago
  Well said, imho.
- faeriechangling 3y ago
  I won't deny that poker REALLY doesn't work when it's for play money, and poker is honestly one of the greatest games I've ever played in terms of sheer depth and how much you can replay it. At the same time, it's not the only great game I've played. When it comes to probability-centric games, I'm fond of Backgammon, deck builders, and computer strategy games which are all enjoyable when not played for stakes. I think the first time Poker disturbed me is when I was at a table when somebody was going all-in every other hand for hours just bleeding a ton of money, not really playing the game, just having a sort of problem as everybody at the table stayed at that table swallowing the money. When you realise a lot of the fun the good players have who study poker strategy is not only at the expense of such people, but poker itself wouldn't be nearly as popular as it is if such people didn't exist and it was all very serious people reading strategy books who were all slowly losing money to the rake, the magic sort of fades. Even among the winning players, you see people who aren't technically losing money but can't stop themselves from playing despite the fact they're spending way too much time on the game, not really enjoying it, while barely making any money. I don't know, Why not play a fun game where nobody has to suffer? You know who I see playing non-gambling probability games all the time? Former poker pros.
r00fus 3y ago
Exactly. Gambling’s major flaw for me is that it can help launder money. It’s essentially a one-way function you can apply to large sums of cash. Ever wonder why James Bond always hangs around a casino? It’s how you legally pay and enable hit-men.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  And here I thought it was because of the women and martinis.
  - r00fus 3y ago
    Enough money buys both. Corrupt activities pay well where money is unregulated.

soperj 3y ago

> What social problems was underground betting actually causing? Underground betting funds organized crime.

listenallyall 3y ago
Primarily, the crime of bookmaking, so it's a circular argument.
- soperj 3y ago
  Very doubtful that all the money accrued from underground gambling goes into more underground gambling.
  - listenallyall 3y ago
    Mafia rings that make money from bookmaking and then also deal in drugs, prostitution, protection rackets, etc have been nearly eliminated and live on today primarily due to Hollywood, The Sopranos, etc.
- vkou 3y ago
  Mob bookies kill other bookies who encroach on their turf.
  - faeriechangling 3y ago
    So the harm is shifted from the gambling addicts to the people exploiting them is what you're saying?
    - vkou 3y ago
      That's like saying that the only harm of a drug war is to the street dealers. All things being equal, I'd rather not live in a town where organized groups of people have a strong profit motive to pop their competition off.
      - faeriechangling 3y ago
        I won't deny that underground gambling has all sorts of collateral damage, I just don't think that Disney causes far more collateral damage than these criminals ever did just in a non-violent way. They're less thuggish, more Bernie Madoff in their effects on society. I sincerely and strongly believe legal gambling causes far more harm than criminals ever did. The reason gambling gets legalised is not because legalised gambling reduces harm. It's because legalised gambling can balance the books for some politician before the next election, because they can sell it as being "pro-fun", because gamblers themselves will vote for them, and because the harms are abstract, diffuse, and blamed on the gamblers themselves.
        xp84 3y ago
        One of the oldest debates in government imho... yes, vices are bad. Yes, they're also human nature. Yes, prohibition is problematic, yes, decriminalization also has tradeoffs. There aren't any "correct" positions on these. It's just a game of moving around the harms.
        kwhitefoot 3y ago
        We have seen immense harm from legal gambling in the UK since it was liberalised some years ago, far more than any illegal gambling ever caused in the UK. Whether that is also true of the US I can't say but I suspect that it is true to some extent.

beardedetim 3y ago

> while providing nothing of value you can't get from a game that's not for stakes. When I play poker, I don't get the same fun value when it's for nothing but the clay chips or even if it's for $2 total win (_when playing for pennies_). The _fun_ for me is when it's a $20+ decision, the _fun_ for me is to play against other people where the decision they have to make has _weight_ to it. I think that there is _fun_ to be had when you're playing for stakes that cannot be had when you're playing for nothing. When I throw the dice, it's not _fun_ to see if it lands on a 7 or 11 or whatever the rules of craps are. The _fun_ for me is the betting, the winning or losing of the money. If I just wanted to see who could get a set of numbers from random dice rolls without money involved, I'd play Yahtzee. I agree that _some people_ shouldn't gamble because it's not _fun_ but an _addiction_. Just like _some people_ probably shouldn't drink because it's not _fun_ but an _addiction_ or shouldn't smoke weed because it's not _fun_ but _addicting_. That doesn't mean that there is _no value_ being added to the people's lives that _find it fun_ and don't find it _addicting_. We may disagree on if _fun_ is of any value to people vs the harm that that _fun_ might give them and I think we both agree we should make it _really clear_ the consequences of the _fun_ someone chooses to have. But I disagree that gambling adds _no value_ whatsoever or the idea that what I find is of no value means that everyone should agree it adds no value. Let the players have their fun, tax the shit out of it, and offer help to those that have an addiction to it, just like smoking or drinking or anything else that we as a society have deemed not illegal but not directly beneficial.

korse 3y ago
Well said, imho.
faeriechangling 3y ago
I won't deny that poker REALLY doesn't work when it's for play money, and poker is honestly one of the greatest games I've ever played in terms of sheer depth and how much you can replay it. At the same time, it's not the only great game I've played. When it comes to probability-centric games, I'm fond of Backgammon, deck builders, and computer strategy games which are all enjoyable when not played for stakes. I think the first time Poker disturbed me is when I was at a table when somebody was going all-in every other hand for hours just bleeding a ton of money, not really playing the game, just having a sort of problem as everybody at the table stayed at that table swallowing the money. When you realise a lot of the fun the good players have who study poker strategy is not only at the expense of such people, but poker itself wouldn't be nearly as popular as it is if such people didn't exist and it was all very serious people reading strategy books who were all slowly losing money to the rake, the magic sort of fades. Even among the winning players, you see people who aren't technically losing money but can't stop themselves from playing despite the fact they're spending way too much time on the game, not really enjoying it, while barely making any money. I don't know, Why not play a fun game where nobody has to suffer? You know who I see playing non-gambling probability games all the time? Former poker pros.

r00fus 3y ago

Exactly. Gambling’s major flaw for me is that it can help launder money. It’s essentially a one-way function you can apply to large sums of cash. Ever wonder why James Bond always hangs around a casino? It’s how you legally pay and enable hit-men.

ethbr1 3y ago
And here I thought it was because of the women and martinis.
- r00fus 3y ago
  Enough money buys both. Corrupt activities pay well where money is unregulated.