5 ms·

> I struggle with the freedom for personal choice to do what you want vs the collective better situation we get to form for ourselves as a society by banning th

> I struggle with the freedom for personal choice to do what you want vs the collective better situation we get to form for ourselves as a society by banning these things, but I think I'm just leaning more towards the latter now. I am 100% in favor of banning sports betting. The thing that makes it obvious for me is the "losers only" policy all of the sports betting sites have. If you consistently win by taking advantage of incorrectly priced odds you'll be banned. All it takes is watching a few YouTube videos with sharps (aka winning bettors) or arbitrage bettors and you can see the scam. If you consistently lose, welcome aboard! If you consistently win, GTFO! IMO, that makes it predatory. At a minimum, they should be forced to accept all bets and banning someone for winning should be illegal.

soupfordummies 3y ago
Very similar to card-counting at blackjack. You’re literally just using your brain to improve your odds. Even perfect conditions will only net the player a very slim edge against the casino but if the player is suspected of doing it they are no longer allowed to wager.
datavirtue 3y ago
We can keep it legal but just make everyone's wins and losses public record. Full accounting. There's your wet blanket, and people get to keep their freedom.
dev_tty01 3y ago
You are correct. There is no gambling establishment or app that allows consistent winners to continue playing. Might not be rigged in the play itself, but it doesn't need to be if you are allowed to kick out the winners.
- costco 3y ago
  They exist, it's just a different business model (high volume, low margin) that's not compatible with massive TV advertising campaigns, large sign up bonuses, etc. See Pinnacle. Alternatively, there's the exchange model a la Betfair where you let the users take the risk and merely collect a fee. You can also squeeze but not ban consistent winners with a "premium charge." Interstate betting outside of horse racing is of questionable legality and I don't think that model was too popular when it was tried in America so it doesn't really exist here. It's not even clear that models in which winners aren't removed are more fair or better for the average person. Winners in betting on horses aren't banned. Yet total horse racing handle in the US has been in decline for almost 2 decades at this point. Most of the volume at this point is just algorithms competing with each other for some infinitesimally small edge. Lots of frustration among the humans with last second odds changes due to automated wagering. Not only that, traditionally under parimutuel betting the track take is 15-20%, but because racetracks want to raise volume they will give rebates of up to around half that to high volume (read: robot) bettors. Any sort of exchange model will eventually devolve into something like this. Given that the supermajority of people will lose money betting and are betting for the thrill of it, should the interests of winners even be considered from a policy perspective?
nostromo 3y ago
The answer isn't banning it, it's some basic regulation of the industry. For example, look how well the Nevada Gaming Control Board keeps Vegas casinos honest. And the casinos welcome it too -- because it shows that Vegas is a pretty fair place to gamble. You will likely lose money, but you'll lose it fair and square.
- Nullabillity 3y ago
  What? Casinos are infamous for having the same policy.

soupfordummies 3y ago

Very similar to card-counting at blackjack. You’re literally just using your brain to improve your odds. Even perfect conditions will only net the player a very slim edge against the casino but if the player is suspected of doing it they are no longer allowed to wager.

datavirtue 3y ago

We can keep it legal but just make everyone's wins and losses public record. Full accounting. There's your wet blanket, and people get to keep their freedom.

dev_tty01 3y ago

You are correct. There is no gambling establishment or app that allows consistent winners to continue playing. Might not be rigged in the play itself, but it doesn't need to be if you are allowed to kick out the winners.

costco 3y ago
They exist, it's just a different business model (high volume, low margin) that's not compatible with massive TV advertising campaigns, large sign up bonuses, etc. See Pinnacle. Alternatively, there's the exchange model a la Betfair where you let the users take the risk and merely collect a fee. You can also squeeze but not ban consistent winners with a "premium charge." Interstate betting outside of horse racing is of questionable legality and I don't think that model was too popular when it was tried in America so it doesn't really exist here. It's not even clear that models in which winners aren't removed are more fair or better for the average person. Winners in betting on horses aren't banned. Yet total horse racing handle in the US has been in decline for almost 2 decades at this point. Most of the volume at this point is just algorithms competing with each other for some infinitesimally small edge. Lots of frustration among the humans with last second odds changes due to automated wagering. Not only that, traditionally under parimutuel betting the track take is 15-20%, but because racetracks want to raise volume they will give rebates of up to around half that to high volume (read: robot) bettors. Any sort of exchange model will eventually devolve into something like this. Given that the supermajority of people will lose money betting and are betting for the thrill of it, should the interests of winners even be considered from a policy perspective?

nostromo 3y ago

The answer isn't banning it, it's some basic regulation of the industry. For example, look how well the Nevada Gaming Control Board keeps Vegas casinos honest. And the casinos welcome it too -- because it shows that Vegas is a pretty fair place to gamble. You will likely lose money, but you'll lose it fair and square.

Nullabillity 3y ago
What? Casinos are infamous for having the same policy.