5 ms·
The battle to stop clever people betting
- zoenolan 11mo agohttps://archive.is/kyqxs https://archive.is/kyqxs
- recursivedoubts 11mo agoremember when gambling was mostly illegal?
- Havoc 11mo agoI'd venture that actually smart people don't go near this at all because they know telling yourself "I'm better than others and won't get addicted"...all to chase a couple bucks is the height of folly. Polymarket has me intrigued though. Especially stuff like their geopolitics section...as a measure of how good one's read of the world is. Still gambling in disguise though
- bpt3 11mo agoSmart people who are "gambling" for anything other than fun only would participate when they have an edge. There are many ways to obtain such an edge, and the casinos are highly motivated to prevent that from happening.
- timcobb 11mo agoI used to think this but then developed the impression that quite the opposite is true, that a great many clever people live their lives betting on this or that (equities, derivities, sports, polymarket, often they call it "risk management" or other such things) and, unfortunately, that abstaining from betting (as I still do) is, unfortunately for me, an unrealistic maladaptive cope. I think the adaptive thing to do is to learn how to bet, especially if you're not a person who becomes pathological.
- paulgb 11mo ago> an unrealistic maladaptive cope I like betting myself, but I don't think abstaining from betting is maladaptive at all. Most of the bets we encounter in the real world are negative EV.
- timcobb 11mo agoWhat do you like about betting? > Most of the bets we encounter in the real world are negative EV. Yeah that's why I don't like betting. It feels not smart, for me especially. But people who make the right bets can make very large otherwise unrealizable gains.
- paulgb 11mo agoI like betting because I find it fun to quantify probabilities of future events, and having a ~small amount of money at stake keeps me motivated to follow through on whether I was right. I do think there are positive EV bets to be had on prediction markets though, they are mosty not efficient.
- dangus 11mo agoI imagine there’s lots of money to be made on fools in polymarket, like “Will the US confirm that aliens exist in 2025?” That topic had over a 10% “yes” chance in January. Betting no on that is better taking out a CD.
- ismailmaj 11mo agoMaybe an extremely inefficient way to do money laundering?
- newsclues 11mo agoNo but it’s a perverse incentive for people in power
- amenhotep 11mo agoI can't remember the exact figures, but apparently if you'd taken the "insane thing does not happen" option on every Trump related contract over the past years, you'd have made a very tidy profit. Not because he doesn't do insane things, obviously, the market is just not at all good at pricing it.
- mmcwilliams 11mo agoAfter the platform takes its cut the actual percentage is not as appealing.
- singron 11mo agoYou can still make that bet at 10% "yes" for the next year. Previous years had similar patterns, so it's not a reaction to Trump. To be fair, we don't need to find little green men in a UFO. It's sufficient to e.g. find fossils of extinct microorganisms on Mars, which is a slim possibility that's a goal of the Mars Sample Return mission. These markets also have low volume at reasonable prices. If you bought $10K of "no" right now for next year, you would only get an 8% return, not 10%. You could execute better trades to get better prices, but the odds also become more sane over the year. The S&P 500 is also up 18% YTD (13% YoY for the last 5) and you can buy as much of that as you want.
- ACCount37 11mo agoPolymarket's purpose was specifically to let the best of the best take the pot by predicting events with real world impact. So, ideally, it's "gambling" in the same way day trading is gambling. Contrast that to normal "sports betting" - which aims to block skilled betters, and squeeze suckers for their cash.
- airstrike 11mo agoPolymarket is an "insider trading" festival. Plenty of suckers getting squeezed there too.
- watwut 11mo agoA lot of day trading is pure gambling tho. And prediction markets dont even pretend to not be gambling, except for legal reasons.
- piva00 11mo agoIt's betting but even better for the house: they don't need to put anything on the pot to lose it, just taking a cut from the zero-sum game others are betting on. That's why Kalshi/Polymarket don't care about winners, they don't lose money to them, others do. It's all gambling, as most of day trading also is.
- begueradj 11mo ago> I'd venture that actually smart people don't go near this at all because they know telling yourself "I'm better than others and won't get addicted" Being addicted is not an intelligence criterion because every human is addicted to something -good or bad. That's actually a basic principle of how we function cognitively. - https://psychiatryofscottsdale.com/psychiatrists-honest-take-on-addiction/ https://psychiatryofscottsdale.com/psychiatrists-honest-take... - https://psychiatryofscottsdale.com/were-all-addicted-to-something-part-2/ https://psychiatryofscottsdale.com/were-all-addicted-to-some...
- istjohn 11mo agoEvery human is not addicted to something good or bad. You're abusing the definition of addiction.
- skippyboxedhero 11mo agoThe analogue that people have of betting is, for some reason, drugs. Addiction is an inherent property of taking drugs. Gambling is not like this in any way. It is not inherently addictive, 99% of people who gamble have no issue with it. It isn't to chase a couple of bucks either. Billy Walter has made hundreds of millions. A recent court case leaked that Tony Bloom's syndicate was making £200m in profit per year. This activity helps make these markets more efficient. There is nothing wrong with gambling. Fast food kills tens of thousands a year in the US, hundreds of billions spent on healthcare and life expectancy is still terrible because of obesity. Should we ban fast food? Why? Many other people don't have a problme. The idea of personal responsibility will always be completely abhorrent to some part of the population.
- skybrian 11mo agoWhile it’s true that many (most?) people won’t have a problem, a minority have their lives ruined as well as family members, and the risk of that is reason enough to regulate it. This isn’t all that different from alcohol.
- skippyboxedhero 11mo agoOkay, but gambling is heavily regulated...so that isn't the discussion here. You believe that alcohol should be banned then?
- watwut 11mo agoThe gambling the article ia about is not regulated. Saying "heavily regulated" is just very far from truth.
- skippyboxedhero 11mo agoFirst, most states ban many forms of gambling...so I would call that heavy regulation. Second, whilst the regulatory approach in legal states differs - for example, NJ...for various reasons...is one of the most strict - the overall level is high. Most states have self-exclude/no-market lists, most states require links to gambling addiction helplines in adverts and within product, responsible gaming features are required in every state de facto (and providers are going beyond this in reality) so this is deposit/wager/loss/time limits, reality checks have effectively become mandatory, some states have hard limits on total wagers or require ACK over limit, deposit alerts are also moving to mandatory, there are limits on some kind of machines and how they operate (this is a massive difference to casino gambling, IGT designed physical machines that only appealed to addicts, that experience can now be 100% controlled online), etc. I don't think people are aware that state regulatory bodies exist and are doing a huge amount. If you compare with European countries, I would say that providers are probably more aware of their responsible gaming function (afaik, many providers have responsible gaming goals that impact board-level compensation, so in the past year you had providers blanket limiting customers based on certain categories...which, I will add, is not an ideal approach, no regulator asked them to do this). In addition, there are some aspects of regulation that, afaik, don't happen anywhere else: for example, most state regulators are checking code that providers are deploying to ensure it is compliant. This change in regulatory approach is largely a function of things moving online. To be blunt, when Adelson died then the old approach of functionally limited regulation was over because no-one was being paid to advocate for it. Online gaming also enables far more controls over the experience i.e. you can enforce hard limits (as opposed to a pit boss telling someone to stop). I can only assume that most people are completely unaware that this is happening though. The difference with Polymarket and co, which are regulated as financial firms, should be quite obvious too. People are gambling on their site, they are doing none of the above.
- woooooo 11mo agoSmart people can like sports, and there's a century long history of "sharps" who are better than most at sports gambling.
- chongli 11mo agoPeople who find an edge and actually make a lot of money aren’t really gamblers though, they’re hackers. The bets they’re placing are guaranteed to pay out as long as their edge is maintained. They often retire after the edge is discovered and fixed.
- chongli 11mo agoSince my friends gamble on sports and I enjoy sports a lot I’ve placed a few bets here and there. I don’t find it addictive at all. My sense of loss aversion must be just too high for it or something. Every time I lost a bet I wanted to uninstall the app it annoyed me so much. Once I lost the initial bankroll and bonus bets I uninstalled the app. I think the folks who get addicted must have much lower loss aversion and higher thrill-seeking. People like me can’t become even regular recreational gamblers (betting small amounts without ruining their lives) because it’s too frustrating.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- barnabee 11mo agoI know people who profitably run algorithms on Betfair, etc. Smart people will treat it like any other “trading” or “arbitrage” opportunity, given half a chance.
- wkat4242 11mo agoIt doesn't really sound fair if they are allowed to ban clever people. Isn't that the point of a game?
- alex_duf 11mo agoSince when is betting supposed to be fair? The whole point is the middle man extracts money.
- ACCount37 11mo agoThe point is to part gamblers with their money. Sport betting was never anything more than that.
- ancillary 11mo agoYeah, on the spectrum of ways to make money, running a sports betting site is pretty bad. It's zero-sum (unlike, say, founding a company and getting rich from shares that were initially worthless), doesn't really incentivize discovery of any truly valuable info (if you find out a player is injured an hour before everyone else ... ok?), and seems to disproportionately hit people who are already not doing very well. Seeing the statistics about young American men's betting habits makes me feel old.
- ACCount37 11mo agoThe sum is negative, really. If you take $1000 from a few gambling addicts? You spend your own time and effort doing that - while the negative impact of that loss on their livelihood is likely to be larger than positive impact of your gain on your livelihood. It's why gambling is usually regulated so heavily. Some people must have thought that sports-flavored gambling is going to be different - or were financially incentivized to think so. Turns out it isn't.
- ChrisMarshallNY 11mo ago> while the negative impact of that loss on their livelihood is likely to be larger than positive impact of your gain on your livelihood. What's your point? /s Negative things happening to other people is "0," as long as you are getting something from it. In some cases, it may actually be "good," if you don't like the people suffering negative consequences. This is not a trait that only applies to gambling. Almost every corporation on Earth takes the same attitude. That's why unregulated capitalism is very bad.
- pfdietz 11mo agoDoes Ozempic ameliorate gambling addiction, as it seems to do to alcohol and other drug addictions?
- knallfrosch 11mo agoYes
- astura 11mo agoYes, it decreases urges for a very wide range of compulsive behaviors, including (but not limited to) gambling, shopping, nail biting, and skin picking.
- Someone1234 11mo agoThere is likely a correlation between reductions in other addictive behavior such as shopping/gambling addictions and GLP-1s. That being said: - Some people have reported no benefit. - The effect may be lower than counteracting chemically addictive behavior (e.g. eating, drinking, smoking, drugs). I think we can speculate with what we know today that there is SOME effect, but more data/studies are needed to see how large effect really is. Particularly as the overall effect is lower, you need more data to separate it from noise/placebo.
- m4ck_ 11mo agoI would love to see the gambling industry beaten back into whatever holes they slithered out of. If you want to gamble it should be in some smokey back room at a liquor store. I'm surprised the christian right isn't making more of a fuss about gambling, but I guess they're getting greased to look the other way.
- watwut 11mo agoIt is not gay, it is masculine, it does not hurt women, so christian right likes it. That it also hurts playing men does not bother christian right either, they will blame women and gay for that anyway.
- gspetr 11mo ago> it does not hurt women Why make assertions that even a cursory search can disprove? https://bettingladies.com/articles/super-bowl-2024 https://bettingladies.com/articles/super-bowl-2024
- watwut 11mo agoI mean, we can reach gender equality in this one too, but overall, men are still more of direct victims. Women are still more of indirect ones - harmed more by having relationship with gambler and ending responsible for debt due to marriage.
- UncleMeat 11mo agoDomestic violence incidents go up when hometown sports teams lose. This effect is amplified with gambling. Women might be less likely to lose their wealth than men, but they are still likely to be victims of the ecosystem.
- blell 11mo agoLately it feels like more and more people who are not religious invoke Christ to tell believers what they must do.
- xcskier56 11mo agoSeems like a great opportunity to curtail betting. You want to leach money out of people, well you have to leave yourself open to let the pros do it to you.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- istjohn 11mo agoGambling disorder was the first behavioral addiction to be officially recognized alongside chemical dependencies; the DSM-5 reclassified gambling disorder from "impulse control disorder" to "substance-related and addictive disorders."
- deadbabe 11mo agoWhy wouldn’t you ban clever people? Isn’t the point to let all players have a fairly equal chance? Someone’s going to win the money regardless, so it’s not like you’re saving money. If the same data savvy people are just going to win most of the time, why would people bother playing? Ultimately you would not have enough players and the industry collapses. I don’t understand why this makes the casinos the bad guys.
- shlant 11mo ago> Isn’t the point to let all players have a fairly equal chance? Do you genuinely think this is why clever players are banned? > Someone’s going to win the money regardless, so it’s not like you’re saving money. What? banning people who have a better edge vs. the house won't save money?
- deadbabe 11mo agoMost money being lost isn’t being lost to people with better edge.
- pama 11mo agoPer the article, the intelligent bets are typically against the house (unpopular/early), not other people. The organizers wouldnt care if other people lost their money. Addicts would still bet somewhere.
- ekjhgkejhgk 11mo agoIf you want to bet, you could do so in regulated markets like financial markets. This isn't a smartass remark "stock market is gambling". I literally mean that the financial markets went through all this bullshit 100 years ago, and came up with rules to make them fairer. For example, you won't be blocked from the stock market just because you do really well.
- jbstack 11mo agoIt's a bad analogy because the incentives are totally different. With sports betting (of the type in the article) you're betting against the bookmaker. If you win, they lose, and vice versa. Obviously it's better for them that you lose. With financial markets you are betting against other users. The ones running the market take fees on each transaction, so they don't care whether you win or lose. Their incentive is just to keep you making transactions.
- ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago> With financial markets you are betting against other users. Learn what a "broker" is.
- wbshaw 11mo agoI always understood bookmaking as the house making money on the vig. They don't care who wins or loses. They just want to make sure there's an equal number and they take their percentage off the top of all the bets. Too many people betting the over? Move the line.
- pama 11mo agoThe article explains that there are other betting systems/organizations where you bet against the house, especially in early times of a new type of bet, before there is market information. These organizations try to eliminate/reduce the power of intelligent players. In financial markets the function of the house is done by market makers. You could technically burn down a market maker with superior intellect and a deep bankroll, but they generally have very deep pockets and make money at a fast rate to weather the storms.
- int32_64 11mo agoAs the middle class continues to shrink in the West the gambling crisis will only get worse. It has to be understood by older people that for many young people the only way to afford a lifestyle previously achievable in many cities with a basic job is to win the lottery.
- integralid 11mo agoGambling addiction is a pretty certain way to become poor though.
- int32_64 11mo agoThe new age gambler logic would be if you know you can't afford a house through saving, the goal will always be out of reach, so you are already poor and will always be, so you might as well gamble. It's the age of "financial nihilism".
- sfn42 11mo agoIt's total BS though. If you have enough money to waste any significant amount on gambling, then you also have enough to save that same significant amount. I don't think it's necessarily the worst thing if you waste like $10 a month playing the lottery, that's not why you can't afford a home. But if you're spending like $100+ a month gambling that is absolutely a big part of why you can't afford a home. Sure maybe you'll never afford a home in New York. Live elsewhere then. There does exist more modest housing. If you're working in a city earning too little to live there then you're doing the wrong thing. Move out of the city. Yes it is that simple, and no I don't give a shit if that's where you want to live. If you can't afford it you can't afford it. Gambling won't help.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- tsoukase 11mo agoThere are two motives for gambling: one is to win but a bigger one is to harm yourself in a quasi suicidal mood. Gambling hides a state of depression.
- OutOfHere 11mo agoThere is a simple and honest way to deal with it. It is to inform the dumb users before they place a bet that the historically smart winners have stacked up against them. If done well, it should substantially help even the odds. Anyhow, this is why a better should stick to platforms that are unbiased.
- jaybrendansmith 11mo agoGambling is legalized crime. We are living in the future the dystopian novels warned us about.
- dgrr19 11mo agoBetting places like polymarket even the playfield. The gambling industry is rigged. Decentralized venues make it fair for everyone to bet
- e40 11mo agoThis isn’t about an even playing field. It’s about spending too much money on gambling.