4 ms·

It is regulated at least in a number of countries. In France for instance, only certified operators are legally allowed to run online money games (https://www.

It is regulated at least in a number of countries. In France for instance, only certified operators are legally allowed to run online money games (https://www.economie.gouv.fr/cedef/jeux-et-paris-ligne https://www.economie.gouv.fr/cedef/jeux-et-paris-ligne). It is just as dangerous as « regular gambling ».

danielfoster 3y ago
Money games are regulated in the US, too, but this is not a money game because there is no money to be won.
raincole 3y ago
I really don't know why "only certified operators are allowed" is a positive thing. For me it means the money bag is no longer on the table -- not because we removed it or invested it in something better, but because we gave it to the politicians' best buddies. Edit: I don't know French so I might miss some nuances. There are some kinds of regulation that I consider positive, for example to put a certain % of the casino's operating cash in a trust funding account (or buy insurance plans) so if they were found fraudulous, at least the victims would get compensated. But I don't know if France does this.
- underdeserver 3y ago
  Presumably because you set certain conditions and regulations on the certified operators, with the threat of revoking certification if they fail to comply with these regulations. I would suggest, for instance, that someone about to bet more than 99% of people must have a chat with an official who verifies that they know they're addicted and present options for rehab.
  - mandelbrotwurst 3y ago
    > someone about to bet more than 99% of people How would you calculate this? By total bet volume alone? A very wealthy person can safely gamble more than a less wealthy one and might reasonably be gambling without being addicted despite having been flagged by this simple algorithm.
    - admax88qqq 3y ago
      Oh no an edge case! Then that very wealthy person talks to an official who verifies they can afford to bet that much.
      - mandelbrotwurst 3y ago
        Snark aside, there are other issues. What if someone has been betting frequently, but they've been winning so far? They'll be deemed "addicted" by this algorithm. Should they be? How much will it cost to administer this program? How confident are you that it will improve outcomes? Why should I be required to share details of my finances in order to play? Legal gambling has issues but I would definitely vote against your proposal. Keep regulations simple, either allow the activity or don't. It's not worthwhile to try to duct tape over side effects with mitigation programs of questionable impact that will inevitably be expensive to administer, all while arbitrarily invading peoples' privacy.
        admax88qqq 3y ago
        First of all it's not my proposal, but the proposal was simple enough and could improve outcomes. None of these edge cases are actually issues if the system is "gambler A talks to official B before they're allowed to place more bets." If this was an automated system sure these are issues to sort out. If it's just "talk to an official who confirms you know you're addicted to gambling and provides links to support info" before your next bet is allowed to be placed, none of these edge cases matter. Those who have the wealth that or are not actually addicted can just ignore what the official says. No need to verify wealth, no need to check if they're winning or not. Just "hey you're placing bets at frequency X, are you sure you're not addicted? There is help available, here's some links to support materials."
- bluecalm 3y ago
  It's simple really: we want free market when we want a given area optimised. Cheaper goods, better value, more efficient services. Do we want better gambling companies - more efficient at luring people in and getting them to spend money on gambling? I think there aren't many sane people without vested interest who answer yes to the question. The solution of only running state lotteries at least ensures there won't be much optimisation and the money goes to the public fund. What not to like?
  - broken-kebab 3y ago
    You seriously overestimate "optimization" part. There's no secret knowledge to manipulate someone. All tricks are simple, the root of the trouble is that some people are more prone to this particular type of addiction. And you propose to make gov't to get an interest in exploting addicts. Which is questionable
- zeroonetwothree 3y ago
  That's right, restrictions on entry into a market primarily benefit the existing participants. There is no significant benefit to consumers from this. Far better regulations would be about how they operate, not who does it.

danielfoster 3y ago

Money games are regulated in the US, too, but this is not a money game because there is no money to be won.

raincole 3y ago

I really don't know why "only certified operators are allowed" is a positive thing. For me it means the money bag is no longer on the table -- not because we removed it or invested it in something better, but because we gave it to the politicians' best buddies. Edit: I don't know French so I might miss some nuances. There are some kinds of regulation that I consider positive, for example to put a certain % of the casino's operating cash in a trust funding account (or buy insurance plans) so if they were found fraudulous, at least the victims would get compensated. But I don't know if France does this.

underdeserver 3y ago
Presumably because you set certain conditions and regulations on the certified operators, with the threat of revoking certification if they fail to comply with these regulations. I would suggest, for instance, that someone about to bet more than 99% of people must have a chat with an official who verifies that they know they're addicted and present options for rehab.
- mandelbrotwurst 3y ago
  > someone about to bet more than 99% of people How would you calculate this? By total bet volume alone? A very wealthy person can safely gamble more than a less wealthy one and might reasonably be gambling without being addicted despite having been flagged by this simple algorithm.
  - admax88qqq 3y ago
    Oh no an edge case! Then that very wealthy person talks to an official who verifies they can afford to bet that much.
    - mandelbrotwurst 3y ago
      Snark aside, there are other issues. What if someone has been betting frequently, but they've been winning so far? They'll be deemed "addicted" by this algorithm. Should they be? How much will it cost to administer this program? How confident are you that it will improve outcomes? Why should I be required to share details of my finances in order to play? Legal gambling has issues but I would definitely vote against your proposal. Keep regulations simple, either allow the activity or don't. It's not worthwhile to try to duct tape over side effects with mitigation programs of questionable impact that will inevitably be expensive to administer, all while arbitrarily invading peoples' privacy.
      - admax88qqq 3y ago
        First of all it's not my proposal, but the proposal was simple enough and could improve outcomes. None of these edge cases are actually issues if the system is "gambler A talks to official B before they're allowed to place more bets." If this was an automated system sure these are issues to sort out. If it's just "talk to an official who confirms you know you're addicted to gambling and provides links to support info" before your next bet is allowed to be placed, none of these edge cases matter. Those who have the wealth that or are not actually addicted can just ignore what the official says. No need to verify wealth, no need to check if they're winning or not. Just "hey you're placing bets at frequency X, are you sure you're not addicted? There is help available, here's some links to support materials."
bluecalm 3y ago
It's simple really: we want free market when we want a given area optimised. Cheaper goods, better value, more efficient services. Do we want better gambling companies - more efficient at luring people in and getting them to spend money on gambling? I think there aren't many sane people without vested interest who answer yes to the question. The solution of only running state lotteries at least ensures there won't be much optimisation and the money goes to the public fund. What not to like?
- broken-kebab 3y ago
  You seriously overestimate "optimization" part. There's no secret knowledge to manipulate someone. All tricks are simple, the root of the trouble is that some people are more prone to this particular type of addiction. And you propose to make gov't to get an interest in exploting addicts. Which is questionable
zeroonetwothree 3y ago
That's right, restrictions on entry into a market primarily benefit the existing participants. There is no significant benefit to consumers from this. Far better regulations would be about how they operate, not who does it.