3 ms·

Sports betting is not a game of pure chance, but bookmaking is arguably ethically quite problematic. Most individuals are going up against these very sophistic

Sports betting is not a game of pure chance, but bookmaking is arguably ethically quite problematic. Most individuals are going up against these very sophisticated statistical models created by teams of quants working with huge datasets that you have to pay substantial amounts to access. I think most bettors don't know what they're up against. And the bookie business model is intrinsically anti-consumer: if you win too much then the bookies will ban you. Whereas bookies are quite happy to keep taking money from addicts even when said addicts have already lost their life savings.

RataNova 1y ago
The whole "sports betting is a skill game" angle is technically true in theory, but in practice it's like showing up to a Formula 1 race on a tricycle
- SXX 1y ago
  And any active investment platforms are not different at all. A lot of matketing budget is spent to make people believe they can earn money by trading.
  - watwut 1y ago
    There are some differences: investment platforms wont kick you out if you manage to earn money. Gambling sites do that. If you are loosing a lot, gaming sites make your limits go up. If you are winning a lot, your limits go down. Investment sites dont do that. They also assign "consigliere" to you if you loose a lot. He is supposed to create a personal relationship with you. If you try to stop playing, that person will try to get you back into gaming. You are not betting against investment platform itself, you are betring against other people on it. That is major difference.
    - daymanstep 1y ago
      Yeah, the incentives are completely different between exchanges and bookmakers. Exchanges make money regardless of who wins or loses. Bookmakers make money from their users losing.
thaumasiotes 1y ago
> Most individuals are going up against these very sophisticated statistical models created by teams of quants working with huge datasets that you have to pay substantial amounts to access. There are two things you might do as a bookmaker: (1) Perceive the truth of who is likely to do what, and set odds reflecting that perfect Platonic reality, but with a percentage taken off for yourself. (2) Adjust the odds you offer over time such that, come the event, the amount you stand to collect on either side will cover the amount you owe to the other side. You don't need to know the odds to use strategy (2). Nor do you need to reject bettors who are likely to be right.
- daymanstep 1y ago
  Strategy (2) doesn't tell you how to come up with the initial prices, and bookies can potentially lose a significant amount from giving "bad" initial prices. If an individual is winning a lot of money from a bookie repeatedly because of these bad initial prices, then it is a sign that they might have a better model than the bookie, and so it is in the bookie's interest to ban them, since sports betting is a zero-sum game: every dollar you win from a bookie is a dollar that the bookie loses.
  - thaumasiotes 1y ago
    > If an individual is winning a lot of money from a bookie repeatedly because of these bad initial prices, then it is a sign that they might have a better model than the bookie, and so it is in the bookie's interest to ban them I don't think this follows. If an individual is winning a lot of money repeatedly in this way, it is a sign that the bookie should give their bets a lot of weight when adjusting prices. But that information is something the bookie might want.
    - daymanstep 1y ago
      If bookies want better prices they can pay for prices from places that have good models. Or they can buy / build their own models. What you're suggesting doesn't make sense from an economic perspective.
kriops 1y ago
I addressed this in my original comment. What, exactly and explicitly, is your point?

RataNova 1y ago

The whole "sports betting is a skill game" angle is technically true in theory, but in practice it's like showing up to a Formula 1 race on a tricycle

SXX 1y ago
And any active investment platforms are not different at all. A lot of matketing budget is spent to make people believe they can earn money by trading.
- watwut 1y ago
  There are some differences: investment platforms wont kick you out if you manage to earn money. Gambling sites do that. If you are loosing a lot, gaming sites make your limits go up. If you are winning a lot, your limits go down. Investment sites dont do that. They also assign "consigliere" to you if you loose a lot. He is supposed to create a personal relationship with you. If you try to stop playing, that person will try to get you back into gaming. You are not betting against investment platform itself, you are betring against other people on it. That is major difference.
  - daymanstep 1y ago
    Yeah, the incentives are completely different between exchanges and bookmakers. Exchanges make money regardless of who wins or loses. Bookmakers make money from their users losing.

thaumasiotes 1y ago

> Most individuals are going up against these very sophisticated statistical models created by teams of quants working with huge datasets that you have to pay substantial amounts to access. There are two things you might do as a bookmaker: (1) Perceive the truth of who is likely to do what, and set odds reflecting that perfect Platonic reality, but with a percentage taken off for yourself. (2) Adjust the odds you offer over time such that, come the event, the amount you stand to collect on either side will cover the amount you owe to the other side. You don't need to know the odds to use strategy (2). Nor do you need to reject bettors who are likely to be right.

daymanstep 1y ago
Strategy (2) doesn't tell you how to come up with the initial prices, and bookies can potentially lose a significant amount from giving "bad" initial prices. If an individual is winning a lot of money from a bookie repeatedly because of these bad initial prices, then it is a sign that they might have a better model than the bookie, and so it is in the bookie's interest to ban them, since sports betting is a zero-sum game: every dollar you win from a bookie is a dollar that the bookie loses.
- thaumasiotes 1y ago
  > If an individual is winning a lot of money from a bookie repeatedly because of these bad initial prices, then it is a sign that they might have a better model than the bookie, and so it is in the bookie's interest to ban them I don't think this follows. If an individual is winning a lot of money repeatedly in this way, it is a sign that the bookie should give their bets a lot of weight when adjusting prices. But that information is something the bookie might want.
  - daymanstep 1y ago
    If bookies want better prices they can pay for prices from places that have good models. Or they can buy / build their own models. What you're suggesting doesn't make sense from an economic perspective.

kriops 1y ago

I addressed this in my original comment. What, exactly and explicitly, is your point?