5 ms·

I'd love to see what'd happen in a non profit casino where the wagers were exactly equal to the winnings less some modest operating expenses. Such an enterprise

I'd love to see what'd happen in a non profit casino where the wagers were exactly equal to the winnings less some modest operating expenses. Such an enterprise would address most of the inequity concerns in the article.

garblegarble 2y ago
What would be the point in running such a casino?
- apercu 2y ago
  Money laundering.
- rottencupcakes 2y ago
  A steady income at a co-op style company?
  - garblegarble 2y ago
    You'd be taking on a lot of risk to get there, wouldn't you? You've got the same large initial capital expenditure as a for-profit casino, the same risk of cheats, maintenance, etc., and I suspect the same marketing outlay to keep people coming to your casino vs another.
- tekla 2y ago
  Getting paid to removing fun from life
- spacebanana7 2y ago
  A social project to help gamblers lose less money.
tazu 2y ago
> less some modest operating expenses Therein lies the rub.
RandomCitizen12 2y ago
Take what's in the article, reduce it by 5%, and that's probably what it would be. Sports bet rakes aren't huge (unlike horse racing).
awkward 2y ago
1. If there's expenses, there's a take. 2. Gambling will always be subject to one dynamic - if you're up, you're still in. If you're cleaned out, you're out. That asymmetry gives the house advantage even in roughly 50-50 stakes, and the downside of it ruins lives. 3. Gambling addiction is real and not fully subject to rational control. Gamblers with a cushion of savings or income will always be less susceptible to ones that don't have that cushion.
- spacebanana7 2y ago
  Ideally such a casino wouldn't take any risk/reward on its own balance sheet. So there'd be no upside for the house on how any particular bet played out. Kind of like hosting your friends poker game where you're not playing personally. Even if you allowed gambling addicts to play, would there be much harm? They'd never lose money on average and you could impose affordability tests to mitigate people getting cleaned out.
- dgfitz 2y ago
  > Gambling will always be subject to one dynamic - if you're up, you're still in. I appreciate this point, but I don't think it is a blanket rule. I have been to a casino twice in my life. The first time I was playing with a foreign currency and had no idea how much I had won. Turned out to be like a 7x on what I had started with. I got lucky a few times, cashed out, bought a cigar. Second time was the same: hit a few lucky plays, cashed out. FWIW I regularly do the same with sports betting. I think my ratio of withdraw-vs-deposit is like 9:1 at the moment. Paying the taxes isn't super fun though.
JKCalhoun 2y ago
A coop. They split the profits with the patrons (minus operating expenses) at the end of the year. (So they can go right back and gamble away their share.)
- spacebanana7 2y ago
  You could even extend this by making a rule that gamblers can only wager money they've earned through shares. So there'd be no financial harm to their external life. The cold start problem of such an enterprise could be solved by only imposing this rule after a year, using charity, or - in the worst case - buy ins.

garblegarble 2y ago

What would be the point in running such a casino?

apercu 2y ago
Money laundering.
rottencupcakes 2y ago
A steady income at a co-op style company?
- garblegarble 2y ago
  You'd be taking on a lot of risk to get there, wouldn't you? You've got the same large initial capital expenditure as a for-profit casino, the same risk of cheats, maintenance, etc., and I suspect the same marketing outlay to keep people coming to your casino vs another.
tekla 2y ago
Getting paid to removing fun from life
spacebanana7 2y ago
A social project to help gamblers lose less money.

tazu 2y ago

> less some modest operating expenses Therein lies the rub.

RandomCitizen12 2y ago

Take what's in the article, reduce it by 5%, and that's probably what it would be. Sports bet rakes aren't huge (unlike horse racing).

awkward 2y ago

1. If there's expenses, there's a take. 2. Gambling will always be subject to one dynamic - if you're up, you're still in. If you're cleaned out, you're out. That asymmetry gives the house advantage even in roughly 50-50 stakes, and the downside of it ruins lives. 3. Gambling addiction is real and not fully subject to rational control. Gamblers with a cushion of savings or income will always be less susceptible to ones that don't have that cushion.

spacebanana7 2y ago
Ideally such a casino wouldn't take any risk/reward on its own balance sheet. So there'd be no upside for the house on how any particular bet played out. Kind of like hosting your friends poker game where you're not playing personally. Even if you allowed gambling addicts to play, would there be much harm? They'd never lose money on average and you could impose affordability tests to mitigate people getting cleaned out.
dgfitz 2y ago
> Gambling will always be subject to one dynamic - if you're up, you're still in. I appreciate this point, but I don't think it is a blanket rule. I have been to a casino twice in my life. The first time I was playing with a foreign currency and had no idea how much I had won. Turned out to be like a 7x on what I had started with. I got lucky a few times, cashed out, bought a cigar. Second time was the same: hit a few lucky plays, cashed out. FWIW I regularly do the same with sports betting. I think my ratio of withdraw-vs-deposit is like 9:1 at the moment. Paying the taxes isn't super fun though.

JKCalhoun 2y ago

A coop. They split the profits with the patrons (minus operating expenses) at the end of the year. (So they can go right back and gamble away their share.)

spacebanana7 2y ago
You could even extend this by making a rule that gamblers can only wager money they've earned through shares. So there'd be no financial harm to their external life. The cold start problem of such an enterprise could be solved by only imposing this rule after a year, using charity, or - in the worst case - buy ins.