4 ms·

These apps should be banned. Gambling is a social ill with such a limited upside and so much harm it can't really be justified

llamaimperative 2y ago
Agreed -- I will continue to shout it from every perch I can: politicians who are actively working to proliferate these apps should be (at least journalistically) investigated. I would bet on this being a well-above-random signal of either a personal gambling addiction or corruption.
- jemfinch 2y ago
  But how much would you bet?
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    It'd depend on the individual, but just picking someone completely at random (I live in New York so looked up who's pushing the bills here): https://nysfocus.com/2024/06/05/resorts-world-casino-lobbying https://nysfocus.com/2024/06/05/resorts-world-casino-lobbyin... Word document metadata shows the bill's proposed text was written in circulated in a .docx file created by a lobbying firm that's paid $90k/month by the Malaysian owner of a local casino. Not bad for 30 seconds dedicated to a first blind attempt!
tombert 2y ago
I agree. Take stock option contract trading out with it.
- Infinity315 2y ago
  Stock options have legitimate uses. Like all tools, it can be misused. Stock options can be used as a tool to hedge against risk.
  - tombert 2y ago
    I know, but I think that they're overwhelmingly used for glorified gambling. It wouldn't bother me if it was just hedge funds or big corporations or multibillionaires who played with contracts, it bothers me that regular people do it too, and the average John Doe simply doesn't have the same multi-million-dollar option pricing algorithms that Goldman Sachs does. At that point, it feels like it's big corporations leeching money away from poorer people who don't know better. Full disclosure, I do play with options occasionally, but I have mostly stopped, and I treat it like a casino, or as you mentioned to hedge against risk.
    - hx8 2y ago
      Most of the volume of options trading is done by institutions. By price it's mostly large traders paying each other to mitigate risk. Some smaller traders are getting chewed up in the process, but they are throwing themselves into the machine. You make it sound like options exist for large traders to profit off individuals with access to less information. That's not how options are primarily used. That is however how sports betting is primarily used.
JohnMakin 2y ago
So is alcohol - there are plenty of people who gamble responsibly and get enjoyment out of it. Taking away the entire thing rather than simply making sensible regulation and dealing with scumbag behavior by corporate bookies is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, not to mention extremely moralistic. And, in the end, prohibition never works - bookies still and always will exist.
- tombert 2y ago
  Sure, but if people, for example, started to declare bankruptcy due to gambling addiction, doesn't that mean that taxpayers like you and I are effectively subsidizing these gambling institutions? That goes beyond moralism; most people don't want to pay higher taxes. I think that it's good that we have a safety-net for people who get into impossible levels of debt, but that does mean that we have an interest in figuring out ways to minimize how often bankruptcy is actually invoked.
  - JohnMakin 2y ago
    Scratchers/lotto tickets are legal in most US states so I don’t really understand what point you’re trying to make here. This isn’t a new problem and the state has been profiting off of it for a while. The alternatives are a lot worse. You can’t legislate away vices.
- umvi 2y ago
  > And, in the end, prohibition never works - bookies still and always will exist. I don't think that's exactly true. Laws introduce varying degrees of friction for citizens to do something. It's like entrepreneurship. If there are a bunch of laws in place making it hard to start a business, fewer people will start businesses. Some people will still create illegal businesses on the black market, but lots of law abiding citizens will just stop creating businesses because there's too much friction to bother.
  - everforward 2y ago
    That fails to acknowledge that a) the black market tends to be dramatically less safe b) it drives addicts underground where it's hard to identify and help them and c) the addicts this is meant to help will be disproportionately willing to participate in this new, much worse black market. Bookies scale very well, a small number of them could serve whatever clientele is still interested. It'll probably turn out similarly to drugs. Prohibition keeps your average citizen away, and makes the market much worse for anyone left in it.
0x5f3759df-i 2y ago
At the very least you should have to go to a physical location like a casino, having this stuff in your pocket at all times is insane.
hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
That would be totalitarian and goes against how open societies work. So not banned, but constrained to sensible limits. Speculative investment markets should also be limited because they are also non-value-add activities.
ericmcer 2y ago
could they regulate it in some manner? I like betting on sports but to the tune of $50/month or so, it just makes any event way more interesting when you have $20 on the line. Maybe just put a limit on how much you can transfer to the app each month or something? Like $500?

llamaimperative 2y ago

Agreed -- I will continue to shout it from every perch I can: politicians who are actively working to proliferate these apps should be (at least journalistically) investigated. I would bet on this being a well-above-random signal of either a personal gambling addiction or corruption.

jemfinch 2y ago
But how much would you bet?
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  It'd depend on the individual, but just picking someone completely at random (I live in New York so looked up who's pushing the bills here): https://nysfocus.com/2024/06/05/resorts-world-casino-lobbying https://nysfocus.com/2024/06/05/resorts-world-casino-lobbyin... Word document metadata shows the bill's proposed text was written in circulated in a .docx file created by a lobbying firm that's paid $90k/month by the Malaysian owner of a local casino. Not bad for 30 seconds dedicated to a first blind attempt!

tombert 2y ago

I agree. Take stock option contract trading out with it.

Infinity315 2y ago
Stock options have legitimate uses. Like all tools, it can be misused. Stock options can be used as a tool to hedge against risk.
- tombert 2y ago
  I know, but I think that they're overwhelmingly used for glorified gambling. It wouldn't bother me if it was just hedge funds or big corporations or multibillionaires who played with contracts, it bothers me that regular people do it too, and the average John Doe simply doesn't have the same multi-million-dollar option pricing algorithms that Goldman Sachs does. At that point, it feels like it's big corporations leeching money away from poorer people who don't know better. Full disclosure, I do play with options occasionally, but I have mostly stopped, and I treat it like a casino, or as you mentioned to hedge against risk.
  - hx8 2y ago
    Most of the volume of options trading is done by institutions. By price it's mostly large traders paying each other to mitigate risk. Some smaller traders are getting chewed up in the process, but they are throwing themselves into the machine. You make it sound like options exist for large traders to profit off individuals with access to less information. That's not how options are primarily used. That is however how sports betting is primarily used.

JohnMakin 2y ago

So is alcohol - there are plenty of people who gamble responsibly and get enjoyment out of it. Taking away the entire thing rather than simply making sensible regulation and dealing with scumbag behavior by corporate bookies is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, not to mention extremely moralistic. And, in the end, prohibition never works - bookies still and always will exist.

tombert 2y ago
Sure, but if people, for example, started to declare bankruptcy due to gambling addiction, doesn't that mean that taxpayers like you and I are effectively subsidizing these gambling institutions? That goes beyond moralism; most people don't want to pay higher taxes. I think that it's good that we have a safety-net for people who get into impossible levels of debt, but that does mean that we have an interest in figuring out ways to minimize how often bankruptcy is actually invoked.
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  Scratchers/lotto tickets are legal in most US states so I don’t really understand what point you’re trying to make here. This isn’t a new problem and the state has been profiting off of it for a while. The alternatives are a lot worse. You can’t legislate away vices.
umvi 2y ago
> And, in the end, prohibition never works - bookies still and always will exist. I don't think that's exactly true. Laws introduce varying degrees of friction for citizens to do something. It's like entrepreneurship. If there are a bunch of laws in place making it hard to start a business, fewer people will start businesses. Some people will still create illegal businesses on the black market, but lots of law abiding citizens will just stop creating businesses because there's too much friction to bother.
- everforward 2y ago
  That fails to acknowledge that a) the black market tends to be dramatically less safe b) it drives addicts underground where it's hard to identify and help them and c) the addicts this is meant to help will be disproportionately willing to participate in this new, much worse black market. Bookies scale very well, a small number of them could serve whatever clientele is still interested. It'll probably turn out similarly to drugs. Prohibition keeps your average citizen away, and makes the market much worse for anyone left in it.

0x5f3759df-i 2y ago

At the very least you should have to go to a physical location like a casino, having this stuff in your pocket at all times is insane.

hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago

That would be totalitarian and goes against how open societies work. So not banned, but constrained to sensible limits. Speculative investment markets should also be limited because they are also non-value-add activities.

ericmcer 2y ago

could they regulate it in some manner? I like betting on sports but to the tune of $50/month or so, it just makes any event way more interesting when you have $20 on the line. Maybe just put a limit on how much you can transfer to the app each month or something? Like $500?