4 ms·

A great argument for banning the industry.

by Retric 1y ago

vkou 1y ago
Or at minimum, banning advertising for it. If people want to gamble, they are free to look for a bookie, if people want to buy heroin, they are free to look for a street pharmaceutical sales representative, but neither should be allowed to manufacture demand for their poison, or hand out free samples. > In 2022, Washington Post reported a bettor Beau Wagner who bet $1,000 and won $50,000 on an NBA game. He tweeted a screenshot of his winning bet, and DraftKings reposted it with the caption, “BEAU KNOWS BETTING”. However, a day after his successful bet, his betting limit was severely restricted to a grand total of three dollars and sixty three cents. DraftKings used his win as an advertisement to lure new, unsophisticated bettors to the platform, but they shut down the very bettor they were advertising. Absolute scum.
- dgfitz 1y ago
  I enjoy sports gambling. I’m sure people reading this won’t believe me, but I am “up” about 47% over the past 2 years, which is when I started. I’m good at it and I have a system. I wholeheartedly agree with you, they need to ban advertising, as they did with tobacco. The amount of commercials and adverts is nauseating, the industry is predatory, and I’m having serious thoughts about stopping because of that.
  - lokar 1y ago
    They could (in addition to banning Ads), require them to take bets from anyone not banned for misconduct by some neutral party.
    - dgfitz 1y ago
      I’m not going to defend bans, the industry is shady. People who get lucky once on a big bet shouldn’t get banned, or throttled, especially if they have a history of generally not hitting. To consider it neutrally, there are people who are just really, really good at it. Think a pro athlete playing on a JV sports team, a man among boys if you will. Those people are sincerely just fucking around with online books anyways and make most of their actual plays in-person, large stakes, and it is their primary source of income. I get why they get banned. These piddly online books aren’t “meant” for them. I don’t blame them for trying, it’s as close to free money as they can get. I also get why they get banned. Again, the industry is scummy and predatory. Not defending it. I can see both sides of it though.
  - throwaway422432 1y ago
    Agree with the banning, problem is they are major sponsors of a lot of sports which would then need to find alternatives for funding. AFL (Australia) is one with very embedded sponsorship from SportsBet. Even the voting group for the Norm Smith medal (best on ground in the Grand Final) has someone from SportsBet on it.
    - vkou 1y ago
      > Agree with the banning, problem is they are major sponsors of a lot of sports which would then need to find alternatives for funding. They've managed to get by before sports betting was legalized.
- denkmoon 1y ago
  Sports betting ads are the absolute plague of sports broadcasting here in Australia. You can't go 5 seconds without seeing an ad for gambling. It's just insane, like seeing the cigarette ads in old sports games.
apercu 1y ago
Maybe regulate, not ban, or it just goes back underground.
- cudgy 1y ago
  Underground is an appropriate place for this activity, no? You want your kids betting their savings on this trash? Your mom and dad wasting their retirement?
bfg_9k 1y ago
I don't think they should ban it, but they shouldn't be allowed to ban good bettors.
- ratelimitsteve 1y ago
  if they can't ban good bettors they'll either swap the odds to juice bad bettors even more or go out of business. The idea that government can force you to do business with people you don't want to do business with is broad and dangerous. I think that banning discrimination for protected classes is a good idea (or, more accurately, a bad idea that several other bad ideas have made into an idea that does actually make things a bit better in pragmatic terms). Would you agree that as a guiding principle for good government no one should be forced to associate with anyone they don't want to or disallowed from associating with anyone they do want to? That's the fundamental right that's in conflict with the idea of not being allowed to ban successful bettors. In the US we've decided that the insidiousness of class-based discrimination merits an exception to that idea, but overall free association rules the day. You as a business or a consumer are free to do business or not with anyone you want to or don't, and that's how it should be afaic.
  - bfg_9k 1y ago
    >Would you agree that as a guiding principle for good government no one should be forced to associate with anyone they don't want to or disallowed from associating with anyone they do want to? For an individual? Sure. For a business? Morally/ ethically, no. If you have a business model predicated on only being profitable when you pick and choose your customers, then that business model is unsustainable and shouldn't exist. It's complete crap that I get banned from a casino or betting app simply because I know how to profitably bet on things. If it's not profitable to serve someone like me, then don't serve the product at all. It's like an all you can eat buffet, you shouldn't be allowed to ban someone from there simply because they eat too much. Set time limits, or whatever else you need to do, but don't market it as "all you can eat". Traditional businesses don't have this problem, Apple makes the same amount of money regardless of who they sell an iPhone to, it's predatory businesses that have this issue. >if they can't ban good bettors they'll either swap the odds to juice bad bettors even more or go out of business. Good, do that then. >The idea that government can force you to do business with people you don't want to do business with is broad and dangerous. Governments have been doing stuff like this for a long time. Look at how the legal profession works.
jimt1234 1y ago
Reminds me of when I was a teenager and Denny's banned me and my other hungry, teenage friends from eating at their "All you can eat" buffet. The manager was at least transparent about it, telling us we were literally eating his profits for the day. LOL
crazygringo 1y ago
Why? You haven't made any argument. And lots of industries ban unprofitable customers. All-you-can-eat restaurants will ban customers who eat/take absurd amounts of food, which is unprofitable. Landlords don't rent to prospective tenants who have a history of not paying rent, which is unprofitable. Every major retailer will ban you if you return too many items too often, which is unprofitable. So why would betting be any different? Banning highly unprofitable customers is normal business practice across many industries. There's a reason we call it the free market rather than the forced market. Businesses aren't forced to transact with individuals (unless they are discriminating against specific protected classes like race or gender).
- paxys 1y ago
  Yup, you can say that this should signal to people that they shouldn’t participate in betting, but if they are still doing it willingly then what’s the problem?
  - cudgy 1y ago
    Maybe divorce, crime, homelessness, bankruptcy, suicide, to name a few?
    - paxys 1y ago
      So then should we ban anything that causes one of these things?
      - bluGill 1y ago
        Anything is too strong, but everytime something is a cause we should look at that option along with others. I'm against divorce - but marriage to someone who is abusive is even worse and so I'm forced to allow for divorce despite being against it. There are many many other things in life that are far more complex (even my example is far more complex, but you wouldn't read the 100 volume books if I wrote it - I don't even have time to think about all the details that would need to be in it)

A great argument for banning the industry.

by Retric 1y ago

A great argument for banning the industry.

vkou 1y ago

Or at minimum, banning advertising for it. If people want to gamble, they are free to look for a bookie, if people want to buy heroin, they are free to look for a street pharmaceutical sales representative, but neither should be allowed to manufacture demand for their poison, or hand out free samples. > In 2022, Washington Post reported a bettor Beau Wagner who bet $1,000 and won $50,000 on an NBA game. He tweeted a screenshot of his winning bet, and DraftKings reposted it with the caption, “BEAU KNOWS BETTING”. However, a day after his successful bet, his betting limit was severely restricted to a grand total of three dollars and sixty three cents. DraftKings used his win as an advertisement to lure new, unsophisticated bettors to the platform, but they shut down the very bettor they were advertising. Absolute scum.

dgfitz 1y ago
I enjoy sports gambling. I’m sure people reading this won’t believe me, but I am “up” about 47% over the past 2 years, which is when I started. I’m good at it and I have a system. I wholeheartedly agree with you, they need to ban advertising, as they did with tobacco. The amount of commercials and adverts is nauseating, the industry is predatory, and I’m having serious thoughts about stopping because of that.
- lokar 1y ago
  They could (in addition to banning Ads), require them to take bets from anyone not banned for misconduct by some neutral party.
  - dgfitz 1y ago
    I’m not going to defend bans, the industry is shady. People who get lucky once on a big bet shouldn’t get banned, or throttled, especially if they have a history of generally not hitting. To consider it neutrally, there are people who are just really, really good at it. Think a pro athlete playing on a JV sports team, a man among boys if you will. Those people are sincerely just fucking around with online books anyways and make most of their actual plays in-person, large stakes, and it is their primary source of income. I get why they get banned. These piddly online books aren’t “meant” for them. I don’t blame them for trying, it’s as close to free money as they can get. I also get why they get banned. Again, the industry is scummy and predatory. Not defending it. I can see both sides of it though.
- throwaway422432 1y ago
  Agree with the banning, problem is they are major sponsors of a lot of sports which would then need to find alternatives for funding. AFL (Australia) is one with very embedded sponsorship from SportsBet. Even the voting group for the Norm Smith medal (best on ground in the Grand Final) has someone from SportsBet on it.
  - vkou 1y ago
    > Agree with the banning, problem is they are major sponsors of a lot of sports which would then need to find alternatives for funding. They've managed to get by before sports betting was legalized.
denkmoon 1y ago
Sports betting ads are the absolute plague of sports broadcasting here in Australia. You can't go 5 seconds without seeing an ad for gambling. It's just insane, like seeing the cigarette ads in old sports games.

apercu 1y ago

Maybe regulate, not ban, or it just goes back underground.

cudgy 1y ago
Underground is an appropriate place for this activity, no? You want your kids betting their savings on this trash? Your mom and dad wasting their retirement?

bfg_9k 1y ago

I don't think they should ban it, but they shouldn't be allowed to ban good bettors.

ratelimitsteve 1y ago
if they can't ban good bettors they'll either swap the odds to juice bad bettors even more or go out of business. The idea that government can force you to do business with people you don't want to do business with is broad and dangerous. I think that banning discrimination for protected classes is a good idea (or, more accurately, a bad idea that several other bad ideas have made into an idea that does actually make things a bit better in pragmatic terms). Would you agree that as a guiding principle for good government no one should be forced to associate with anyone they don't want to or disallowed from associating with anyone they do want to? That's the fundamental right that's in conflict with the idea of not being allowed to ban successful bettors. In the US we've decided that the insidiousness of class-based discrimination merits an exception to that idea, but overall free association rules the day. You as a business or a consumer are free to do business or not with anyone you want to or don't, and that's how it should be afaic.
- bfg_9k 1y ago
  >Would you agree that as a guiding principle for good government no one should be forced to associate with anyone they don't want to or disallowed from associating with anyone they do want to? For an individual? Sure. For a business? Morally/ ethically, no. If you have a business model predicated on only being profitable when you pick and choose your customers, then that business model is unsustainable and shouldn't exist. It's complete crap that I get banned from a casino or betting app simply because I know how to profitably bet on things. If it's not profitable to serve someone like me, then don't serve the product at all. It's like an all you can eat buffet, you shouldn't be allowed to ban someone from there simply because they eat too much. Set time limits, or whatever else you need to do, but don't market it as "all you can eat". Traditional businesses don't have this problem, Apple makes the same amount of money regardless of who they sell an iPhone to, it's predatory businesses that have this issue. >if they can't ban good bettors they'll either swap the odds to juice bad bettors even more or go out of business. Good, do that then. >The idea that government can force you to do business with people you don't want to do business with is broad and dangerous. Governments have been doing stuff like this for a long time. Look at how the legal profession works.

jimt1234 1y ago

Reminds me of when I was a teenager and Denny's banned me and my other hungry, teenage friends from eating at their "All you can eat" buffet. The manager was at least transparent about it, telling us we were literally eating his profits for the day. LOL

crazygringo 1y ago

Why? You haven't made any argument. And lots of industries ban unprofitable customers. All-you-can-eat restaurants will ban customers who eat/take absurd amounts of food, which is unprofitable. Landlords don't rent to prospective tenants who have a history of not paying rent, which is unprofitable. Every major retailer will ban you if you return too many items too often, which is unprofitable. So why would betting be any different? Banning highly unprofitable customers is normal business practice across many industries. There's a reason we call it the free market rather than the forced market. Businesses aren't forced to transact with individuals (unless they are discriminating against specific protected classes like race or gender).

paxys 1y ago
Yup, you can say that this should signal to people that they shouldn’t participate in betting, but if they are still doing it willingly then what’s the problem?
- cudgy 1y ago
  Maybe divorce, crime, homelessness, bankruptcy, suicide, to name a few?
  - paxys 1y ago
    So then should we ban anything that causes one of these things?
    - bluGill 1y ago
      Anything is too strong, but everytime something is a cause we should look at that option along with others. I'm against divorce - but marriage to someone who is abusive is even worse and so I'm forced to allow for divorce despite being against it. There are many many other things in life that are far more complex (even my example is far more complex, but you wouldn't read the 100 volume books if I wrote it - I don't even have time to think about all the details that would need to be in it)