4 ms·

> the only “responsible” choice is not to gamble online I don't gamble at all in any form, but I still firmly disagree. Some people enjoy gambling in a way tha

by savanaly 11mo ago

> the only “responsible” choice is not to gamble online I don't gamble at all in any form, but I still firmly disagree. Some people enjoy gambling in a way that never hurts them-- I've known countless friends and coworkers who talk about doing a bit of it in Vegas or what have you. You're saying every last one is a degenerate gambler somehow concealing it totally from me? They know they're not going net positive on the experience, usually lose some money, and get some entertainment. There's a saying about this: abusers give vice a bad name. People should be free to gamble if they want to, and certain checks should be put in place for people who choose to gamble so much it is ruinous to themselves.

random9749832 11mo ago
[flagged]
BoorishBears 11mo ago
You can't let society keep inventing new vices for profit in an uninhibited way. It feels like a bell curve topic, where the most naive people think you should just ban all vices and have a strictly better world, the middle of the road thinks it's all down to personal fortitude, and then people who know how the sausage is made realize the level of asymmetry that exists. Weed isn't just weed anymore, it's fruity pebbles flavored. Porn isn't just porn anymore, it tries to talk like a person and build a parasocial relationship. Video games aren't just video games anymore, they start embedding gambling mechanics and spending 2 years designing the "End of Match" screen in a way that funnels you into the next game or lootbox pull. You need to stop somewhere. Tech + profit motives create an asymmetric war for people's attention and money that results in new forms of old vices that are superficially the same, but realistically much much worse. Gambling specifically online might just be giving tech companies too many knobs that are too easy to tune under the umbrella of engagement and retention.
- snuxoll 11mo ago
  > You can't let society keep inventing new vices for profit in an uninhibited way. I agree, but: > It feels like a bell curve topic, where the most naive people think you should just ban all vices and have a strictly better world, the middle of the road thinks it's all down to personal fortitude, and then people who know how the sausage is made realize the level of asymmetry that exists. There's a wide gap in beliefs of the people who "know how the sausage is made" which is why I'm guessing you didn't ascribe a certain view to them. Realistically, I think it breaks down into three camps: 1. They agree with the other end of the curve, and think the potential harm is too great. 2. They're in on profiting from it. 3. They are open to people being free to make decisions, but think there needs to be regulations on outright predatory behavior and active enforcement of them I don't have a problem with anybody choosing to safely engage with recreational drugs, pornography, gambling, alcohol, and a number of other vices - humans have sought these activities out for an extremely long time, and outright banning them simply (as we have seen time and time again) leads to unregulated black markets that are more harmful to society as a whole. But it feels like we've done a complete 180 and now we have barely any regulation where it's needed, late-stage capitalism at its finest. So many states have put ID verification laws out for accessing pornography, exposing citizens to huge privacy risks in the process, but we've got casino empires draining their savings accounts and can't do anything about it? Please.
  - BoorishBears 11mo ago
    I'm ascribing the same level of sentiment to both ends, that's what a bell curve is. They have different reasons for their disdain, but neither side tends to love it. In general the more people learn about the process, the more they dislike the current system. There's outliers, but that's why the last decade has mostly been a decline in general sentiment around big tech, and even in the last year AI doomerism is going increasingly mainstream. Even the people who make these experiences don't do it beliving they're making something enriching. And they're definitely are not clamoring for their own families to grow up on this stuff. > So many states have put ID verification laws out for accessing pornography, exposing citizens to huge privacy risks in the process, but we've got casino empires draining their savings accounts and can't do anything about it? Please. That's driven by politicians pandering to the naive side of the bell curve, why are you surprised it's not consistent with what's best for the people?. Their actions are driven mostly by what looks good at the polls and doesn't hurt their own bottom line too badly. States are raking in billions of dollars in taxes from gambling, so it's not going to get that treatment.
snuxoll 11mo ago
The problem is this: the house always wins. Casinos, online sports books, the lottery, all of it is designed such that all but quite literally a lucky few will lose money. If you understand this properly, then, yes, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it being a form of entertainment, but that means you need to go in thinking about cost per hour instead of any notion of leaving with more than you began with. This is why I have a huge problem with the recent development of online gambling outlets that you can access via your smartphone. In the past you had to go somewhere to gamble, it was a physical act that provided a barrier to entry. Now? You don't even need to think about it, your bank account is already linked, just spend away! Personally, I'd rather states loosen laws and allow physical casinos be built and properly regulated than be in the current situation we have with these poorly regulated online money-siphons.
- LPisGood 11mo ago
  The house does not always win in online sports books. I personally know some quant minded people that have been banned or backed off from a dozen or more online sports books because they are crushed by any nontrivial understanding of price/probability and arbitrage. They do make a lot of money from people who bet for fun or based on their perceived knowledge of the particular sport.
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  - empath75 11mo ago
    You just explainer why the house always wins. If they don’t, they will stop taking your bets.
  - dghlsakjg 11mo ago
    > I personally know some quant minded people that have been banned or backed off from a dozen or more online sports books That's the house making sure that the house are always the winner.
  - daseiner1 11mo ago
matthewdgreen 11mo ago
These services make a relatively smaller piece of their profit from "responsible" people with a lot of self-control. In many cases, the business is probably not viable without problem gamblers. Problem gamblers account for anywhere from 51% of revenue for sports betting apps, to 90% in the case of casinos [1,2] and the numbers seem to be getting worse. [1] https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DMHAS/Publications/2023-CT-FINAL-REPORT-Jan312024.pdf https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DMHAS/Publications/2023-CT-FIN... [2] https://www.umass.edu/seigma/media/583/download https://www.umass.edu/seigma/media/583/download
- daseiner1 11mo ago
  Same power law in the alcohol industry.
- savanaly 11mo ago
  I can readily believe that to be true, but my point still stands, the person I'm replying to made a really sweeping and incorrect statement.
  - dwaltrip 11mo ago
    You don’t think it’s ethically and morally questionable to frequent a business that knowingly harms the majority of its customers? I agree there’s a some sort of gray area here, but it feels awfully narrow… especially with the recent sports betting companies.
    - Karrot_Kream 11mo ago
      "some gray area" is an understatement. Sports betting companies structure their odds and order books to disadvantage most bettors. There are plenty of markets where that isn't the case.
      - deleted 11mo ago
        [deleted]
    - 11mo ago
rsync 11mo ago
Bob and Alice and the eavesdropper is Eve … What name do we give “the guy who says it’s fine to tear down Chestertons fence” ?
- wizzwizz4 11mo ago
  Robert the reformist.
dwaltrip 11mo ago
Ah yes, let’s blame it all on the weak-willed addicts… That hasn’t been tried before, and would certainly help.
gcanyon 11mo ago
>every one is a degenerate Not at all. First, yes, people should be free to make their own choices. But that means making free choices. Just as we don’t allow advertising for cigarettes, we shouldn’t allow advertising for gambling. Second, there’s a world of difference between “hey, let’s go have a crazy weekend in Vegas” and “I have a blackjack dealer live on my phone 24x7.”
kiba 11mo ago
That's like saying drunk gave alcohol a bad name. It's a net negative for society but we can't simply get rid of it because of the side effect of doing so, particularly since it's so easy to brew alcohol.
lurk2 11mo ago
> You're saying every last one is a degenerate gambler somehow concealing it totally from me? A person can be generally responsible while still making decisions that are irresponsible. Gambling has a negative expected value, and so is generally considered to be irresponsible. Gamblers will often counter that they expect to lose their money and consider it to be a form of entertainment, but the whole of the entertainment is in believing that you might get lucky; this is indistinguishable from the motivation of a gambling addict. You don’t see these people taking out $500 in 1s and setting them on fire for fun, even though this is the aggregate outcome of habitual gambling. Some might protest that all forms of entertainment are like this: You take the $500, take it to a movie theater, and 16 hours later your money is gone and you’ve seen 10 movies. So far as I know, the identification of casual gambling with vice dates back to the Victorian Period. I suspect (but cannot confirm) that the reason gambling was identified as a vice where other forms of comparatively frivolous entertainment were not is due to gambling’s (false) promise of providing money for nothing.
- rufus_foreman 11mo ago
  >> Gambling has a negative expected value Subscribing to Netflix has a negative expected value. Ban Netflix.
  - Libidinalecon 11mo ago
    Even more so are restaurants exploiting the public with over priced food compared to cooking at home. Food that is so good that it is addictive. Restaurants are immoral too since think of the negative health consequences they cause exploiting this situation with their addictive substances. They even put more butter than necessary in the food to make it more addictive. The wait staff treated literally like servants. "We should ban everything besides things I personally find enjoyable"
    - paulryanrogers 11mo ago
      Gambling has unbounded loss potential. That factor is being shamelessly exploited by providers. Restaurants and Netflix have upper bounds on how much financial harm they can inflict upon you, should you compulsively pay for them.
YurgenJurgensen 11mo ago
‘Responsible’ gambling is still morally irresponsible. People are walking adverts for their hobbies whether they like it or not, so people who engage with gambling will be indirectly encouraging other people to take up the hobby, many of which will ruin their lives. (Also some fraction of their losses will fund advertising that will similarly attract problem gamblers.) The low stakes recreational gamblers keep the system looking friendly and approachable. This is also almost certainly by design.
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
watwut 11mo ago
He is saying the reponsible reasonable choice is not to gamble. These people are making unreasonable choices. It was you who brought "degenerate" into it, as if throwing an insult or not made difference in facts. Also, yes, gamblers hide their addiction. That is normal for gambler and you wont know it. They can be likable people and calling them "degenerate" just makes seeking help harder.
cindyllm 11mo ago
[dead]

random9749832 11mo ago

[flagged]

BoorishBears 11mo ago

You can't let society keep inventing new vices for profit in an uninhibited way. It feels like a bell curve topic, where the most naive people think you should just ban all vices and have a strictly better world, the middle of the road thinks it's all down to personal fortitude, and then people who know how the sausage is made realize the level of asymmetry that exists. Weed isn't just weed anymore, it's fruity pebbles flavored. Porn isn't just porn anymore, it tries to talk like a person and build a parasocial relationship. Video games aren't just video games anymore, they start embedding gambling mechanics and spending 2 years designing the "End of Match" screen in a way that funnels you into the next game or lootbox pull. You need to stop somewhere. Tech + profit motives create an asymmetric war for people's attention and money that results in new forms of old vices that are superficially the same, but realistically much much worse. Gambling specifically online might just be giving tech companies too many knobs that are too easy to tune under the umbrella of engagement and retention.

snuxoll 11mo ago
> You can't let society keep inventing new vices for profit in an uninhibited way. I agree, but: > It feels like a bell curve topic, where the most naive people think you should just ban all vices and have a strictly better world, the middle of the road thinks it's all down to personal fortitude, and then people who know how the sausage is made realize the level of asymmetry that exists. There's a wide gap in beliefs of the people who "know how the sausage is made" which is why I'm guessing you didn't ascribe a certain view to them. Realistically, I think it breaks down into three camps: 1. They agree with the other end of the curve, and think the potential harm is too great. 2. They're in on profiting from it. 3. They are open to people being free to make decisions, but think there needs to be regulations on outright predatory behavior and active enforcement of them I don't have a problem with anybody choosing to safely engage with recreational drugs, pornography, gambling, alcohol, and a number of other vices - humans have sought these activities out for an extremely long time, and outright banning them simply (as we have seen time and time again) leads to unregulated black markets that are more harmful to society as a whole. But it feels like we've done a complete 180 and now we have barely any regulation where it's needed, late-stage capitalism at its finest. So many states have put ID verification laws out for accessing pornography, exposing citizens to huge privacy risks in the process, but we've got casino empires draining their savings accounts and can't do anything about it? Please.
- BoorishBears 11mo ago
  I'm ascribing the same level of sentiment to both ends, that's what a bell curve is. They have different reasons for their disdain, but neither side tends to love it. In general the more people learn about the process, the more they dislike the current system. There's outliers, but that's why the last decade has mostly been a decline in general sentiment around big tech, and even in the last year AI doomerism is going increasingly mainstream. Even the people who make these experiences don't do it beliving they're making something enriching. And they're definitely are not clamoring for their own families to grow up on this stuff. > So many states have put ID verification laws out for accessing pornography, exposing citizens to huge privacy risks in the process, but we've got casino empires draining their savings accounts and can't do anything about it? Please. That's driven by politicians pandering to the naive side of the bell curve, why are you surprised it's not consistent with what's best for the people?. Their actions are driven mostly by what looks good at the polls and doesn't hurt their own bottom line too badly. States are raking in billions of dollars in taxes from gambling, so it's not going to get that treatment.

snuxoll 11mo ago

The problem is this: the house always wins. Casinos, online sports books, the lottery, all of it is designed such that all but quite literally a lucky few will lose money. If you understand this properly, then, yes, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it being a form of entertainment, but that means you need to go in thinking about cost per hour instead of any notion of leaving with more than you began with. This is why I have a huge problem with the recent development of online gambling outlets that you can access via your smartphone. In the past you had to go somewhere to gamble, it was a physical act that provided a barrier to entry. Now? You don't even need to think about it, your bank account is already linked, just spend away! Personally, I'd rather states loosen laws and allow physical casinos be built and properly regulated than be in the current situation we have with these poorly regulated online money-siphons.

LPisGood 11mo ago
The house does not always win in online sports books. I personally know some quant minded people that have been banned or backed off from a dozen or more online sports books because they are crushed by any nontrivial understanding of price/probability and arbitrage. They do make a lot of money from people who bet for fun or based on their perceived knowledge of the particular sport.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- empath75 11mo ago
  You just explainer why the house always wins. If they don’t, they will stop taking your bets.
- dghlsakjg 11mo ago
  > I personally know some quant minded people that have been banned or backed off from a dozen or more online sports books That's the house making sure that the house are always the winner.
- daseiner1 11mo ago

matthewdgreen 11mo ago

These services make a relatively smaller piece of their profit from "responsible" people with a lot of self-control. In many cases, the business is probably not viable without problem gamblers. Problem gamblers account for anywhere from 51% of revenue for sports betting apps, to 90% in the case of casinos [1,2] and the numbers seem to be getting worse. [1] https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DMHAS/Publications/2023-CT-FINAL-REPORT-Jan312024.pdf https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DMHAS/Publications/2023-CT-FIN... [2] https://www.umass.edu/seigma/media/583/download https://www.umass.edu/seigma/media/583/download

daseiner1 11mo ago
Same power law in the alcohol industry.
savanaly 11mo ago
I can readily believe that to be true, but my point still stands, the person I'm replying to made a really sweeping and incorrect statement.
- dwaltrip 11mo ago
  You don’t think it’s ethically and morally questionable to frequent a business that knowingly harms the majority of its customers? I agree there’s a some sort of gray area here, but it feels awfully narrow… especially with the recent sports betting companies.
  - Karrot_Kream 11mo ago
    "some gray area" is an understatement. Sports betting companies structure their odds and order books to disadvantage most bettors. There are plenty of markets where that isn't the case.
    - deleted 11mo ago
      [deleted]
  - 11mo ago

rsync 11mo ago

Bob and Alice and the eavesdropper is Eve … What name do we give “the guy who says it’s fine to tear down Chestertons fence” ?

wizzwizz4 11mo ago
Robert the reformist.

dwaltrip 11mo ago

Ah yes, let’s blame it all on the weak-willed addicts… That hasn’t been tried before, and would certainly help.

gcanyon 11mo ago

>every one is a degenerate Not at all. First, yes, people should be free to make their own choices. But that means making free choices. Just as we don’t allow advertising for cigarettes, we shouldn’t allow advertising for gambling. Second, there’s a world of difference between “hey, let’s go have a crazy weekend in Vegas” and “I have a blackjack dealer live on my phone 24x7.”

kiba 11mo ago

That's like saying drunk gave alcohol a bad name. It's a net negative for society but we can't simply get rid of it because of the side effect of doing so, particularly since it's so easy to brew alcohol.

lurk2 11mo ago

> You're saying every last one is a degenerate gambler somehow concealing it totally from me? A person can be generally responsible while still making decisions that are irresponsible. Gambling has a negative expected value, and so is generally considered to be irresponsible. Gamblers will often counter that they expect to lose their money and consider it to be a form of entertainment, but the whole of the entertainment is in believing that you might get lucky; this is indistinguishable from the motivation of a gambling addict. You don’t see these people taking out $500 in 1s and setting them on fire for fun, even though this is the aggregate outcome of habitual gambling. Some might protest that all forms of entertainment are like this: You take the $500, take it to a movie theater, and 16 hours later your money is gone and you’ve seen 10 movies. So far as I know, the identification of casual gambling with vice dates back to the Victorian Period. I suspect (but cannot confirm) that the reason gambling was identified as a vice where other forms of comparatively frivolous entertainment were not is due to gambling’s (false) promise of providing money for nothing.

rufus_foreman 11mo ago
>> Gambling has a negative expected value Subscribing to Netflix has a negative expected value. Ban Netflix.
- Libidinalecon 11mo ago
  Even more so are restaurants exploiting the public with over priced food compared to cooking at home. Food that is so good that it is addictive. Restaurants are immoral too since think of the negative health consequences they cause exploiting this situation with their addictive substances. They even put more butter than necessary in the food to make it more addictive. The wait staff treated literally like servants. "We should ban everything besides things I personally find enjoyable"
  - paulryanrogers 11mo ago
    Gambling has unbounded loss potential. That factor is being shamelessly exploited by providers. Restaurants and Netflix have upper bounds on how much financial harm they can inflict upon you, should you compulsively pay for them.

YurgenJurgensen 11mo ago

‘Responsible’ gambling is still morally irresponsible. People are walking adverts for their hobbies whether they like it or not, so people who engage with gambling will be indirectly encouraging other people to take up the hobby, many of which will ruin their lives. (Also some fraction of their losses will fund advertising that will similarly attract problem gamblers.) The low stakes recreational gamblers keep the system looking friendly and approachable. This is also almost certainly by design.

deleted 11mo ago

[deleted]

watwut 11mo ago

He is saying the reponsible reasonable choice is not to gamble. These people are making unreasonable choices. It was you who brought "degenerate" into it, as if throwing an insult or not made difference in facts. Also, yes, gamblers hide their addiction. That is normal for gambler and you wont know it. They can be likable people and calling them "degenerate" just makes seeking help harder.

cindyllm 11mo ago

[dead]