7 ms·
Bombarding gamblers with offers greatly increases betting and gambling harm
- xenadu02 7mo agoSuper shocking (sarcasm). Gamblers are the whales of that industry. The industry is well aware of that and well aware of how much harm they can cause. But their paychecks depend on not knowing so they choose not to. Same as pay-to-win freemium games. Find the whales and milk them for all you can. For every high-spender who can afford it they know full well the other 99 cannot. They know they are ruining some people's lives. They know they use dirty psychological manipulation tactics. Their paychecks depend on not knowing so they choose not to.
- mc32 7mo agoAlso there’s a bit of a tragedy of the commons. If one entity is scrupulous that doesn’t mean another will. Obviously if they had any morals they’d see the bright line.
- eucyclos 7mo agoI wonder how incentives could be better aligned. Had an interesting case study where a coworker liked to gamble - he was fairly responsible, kept to his budget and treated it like an expensive hobby he enjoyed- but at the same time, he had someone else handle his retirement investments, which is an unpredictable payoff market where you come out ahead on average. I asked a couple times why he didn't replace gambling with investing and never got a good answer. He was certainly smart enough that he could have had fun with the research and chance. Then there was a market downturn and his investment advisor had to talk him down from selling in a panic, and I was like "oh... It's not an information problem at all. It's entirely an emotional regulation problem" I should sell a "meditation for investors" course
- mothballed 7mo agoI'm not sure it's irrational to sell in a market downturn. It's a way to pad your emergency savings rather than try to catch a falling knife later when you're already fired. Of course if you sell more than you need to survive a layoff, then that's probably not smart.
- jacquesm 7mo agoI think your coworker was quite smart. Investing and gambling are close enough that for many parties they are indistinguishable. I've heard investing described as 'gambling for people with more money'. The biggest difference is that if you have enough money you can legally manipulate the market. If it's your retirement investment that might just be over the horizon far enough to get you into danger. Just having access to that with a habit could already be an issue.
- eucyclos 7mo agoThat's true, but if that was what was stopping him he could have got a no fees account and just used his casino budget to speculate on penny stocks instead. It would be like going to a casino that has better odds and that he can access on his lunch break... Ok I see your point.
- akramachamarei 7mo ago> I asked a couple times why he didn't replace gambling with investing and never got a good answer There's a simple answer, which is that gambling is fun, and investing is not fun (my guess.) Your coworker is a pleasure seeker, like everyone is to some degree.
- Jerrrrrrrry 7mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal–agent_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal–agent_problem
- epolanski 7mo agoThe worst thing is that gambling companies are free to ban you if you win too much. So if you're still there it's just because you're being milked. There's a a giant market for second hand accounts on betting websites for this very reason.
- dozerly 7mo agoThis is my favorite line to bring up amongst my gambling addicted friends :) They are not big fans
- nickff 7mo agoThere are many jurisdictions where the companies are not allowed to ban 'winners', but the companies often respond by lowering those users' bet size limits.
- vasvir 7mo agoNot only winners but anyone that looks like to know what is doing. By that I mean that they try to detect and ban any pattern that may be math / ML derived or arbitrage seeking. I have been banned on an account that was loosing money (around -15eur) and the bet was 2.96eur - yep fractional bets is a big no - no. So while it is possible to find better odds and win in the long run based on stats and ML with a 3% - 5% profit they will ban you before you do.
- Forgeties79 7mo agoNo different than Big Tobacco right? They loved researching all the things that weren’t linked to smoking.
- schubidubiduba 7mo agoNo different than big tech and their divisive algorithms. Or big pharma and side effects. Or big manufacturing and environmental harm (including harm to the people living around manufacturing companies). It is an inherent property of unchecked capitalism to externalise and ignore any unwanted costs. Or on the flip side of that coin, profit from causing damage to others, where possible.
- Forgeties79 7mo agoAbsolutely
- anonymars 7mo agoHa, well, opinions sure vary here. I'm sure it has nothing to do with that Upton Sinclair quote about "understanding"
- Forgeties79 7mo agoNo need to be cryptic. What are you trying to say?
- jkubicek 7mo ago> It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
- nntwozz 7mo ago> Same as pay-to-win freemium games. Find the whales and milk them for all you can. This is what happened to EVE Online and many other MMORPGs.
- rimbo789 7mo agoThe legalization and expansion of gambling was a massive mistake and should be undone as soon as possible.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- monero-xmr 7mo ago[dead]
- FabHK 7mo agoIndeed. I seem to recall reading that among all addictions, gambling addiction had the highest suicide rate. I haven't been able to find a good source on that lamentably, but it seems plausible to me in the sense that many other addictions (alcohol, sex, heroin, etc.) have some sort of end-point built in at which you stop, and typically have only harmed yourself. With gambling you can gamble away your kid's college savings, or the retirement savings for you and your spouse. Seems that you can wreak havoc beyond yourself even more so than with other types of addiction.
- thn-gap 7mo agoMore than end-point, it's about harm throttling. Cigarettes will kill you, but there's only so many cigarettes you can smoke per day. Limit gambling to symbolic amounts (maybe a monthly limit of the minimum salary in that country), and see how it goes. You might even have gambling companies lobbying to increase the minimum salary!
- recursivedoubts 7mo agoCrazy how we (the US) just decided as a society that gambling was not only not illegal anymore but that it was perfectly reasonable to integrate it deeply into every sporting event possible in a span of about five years. We didn't decide that, btw.
- epolanski 7mo agoAnd not just sports, but world events where insiders can have the financial incentives to make terrible things happen. But say that, and the same non sensical asinine crowd that spammed about crypto future or NFTs will tell you that's just to have more accurate information and you don't get it.
- bonesss 7mo agoAs an extension of that kind of betting, a sitting President owning a crypto coin, and private social media platform he bolsters with his official duties, are shocking departures from norms around self-enrichment.
- tim333 7mo agoAnd they say crypto has no use cases.
- ludston 7mo agoI mean if it didn't make the gambling organizations more money they wouldn't do it. Gambling industry has always been about how much wealth it can extract from the punters without being regulated for it. Hopefully this research ends up being used to justify more gambling regulations, but governments are addicted to the gambling lobby donations so who knows what will happen.
- kelseyfrog 7mo agoIf it's so bad for gamblers, why don't they stop? If gambling orgs do something that you know causes harm, why isn't the a legal sense of responsibility?
- tim-projects 7mo agoRelevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsNgQf-DaGU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsNgQf-DaGU
- snarfy 7mo ago> If it's so bad for gamblers, why don't they stop? That's not how addiction works.
- chrislh 7mo agoI highly (and regularly) recommend reading Gabor Mate's "In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts" It's an enlightening read on addiction that will make you more empathetic for addicts of all types: gambling, substances, shopping, whatever. Definitely worth a look if you find yourself asking "Why don't they just stop?" https://www.amazon.com/Realm-Hungry-Ghosts-Encounters-Addiction/dp/155643880X https://www.amazon.com/Realm-Hungry-Ghosts-Encounters-Addict...
- kelseyfrog 7mo agoIf someone cannot stop gambling, then what moral responsibility do gambling organizations have when giving them offers?
- cjcenizal 7mo agoI understand moral arguments but also see how others might not. I think it might be more useful to view this from a societal perspective. Is it to society's benefit to ensure gamblers don't ruin their own lives? To answer that question, what's the cost to society when a gambler ruins their life? Lost savings means an impoverished individual and potentially an impoverished family and children. These draw support resources from the state and community, are more likely to turn to crime, and are less likely to develop into contributing members of society.
- beloch 7mo ago>“Although the findings relate to direct marketing, I see no reason why the same or similar adverse effects wouldn’t occur for gambling advertising on TV or social media.” Controlling/banning advertising for Alcohol and Tobacco results in significant health benefits. Sports gambling used to be illegal in many places or limited to specific places. Now that it's available in your pocket, like a pack of smokes or a flask of whisky, why wouldn't advertising triggers, direct or otherwise, be effective at encouraging susceptible people to partake? This is not a surprising result. It's the inaction of most governments that is surprising.
- jazzpush2 7mo agoIt's everywhere on YouTube, usually as a 'hidden' ad in the alt-right manosphere (e.g. the recent Nick Shirley video he wears a sweatshirt for a gambling site throughout, with constant name drops of it that aren't over ads). Disgusting behavior, especially coming from those who often claim their content is to improve things. Hypocrites across the board.
- epolanski 7mo agoI see Kalshi promoted on many sports highlights videos on YouTube.
- joecool1029 7mo agoMakes sense, it’s high in protein.
- cm2012 7mo agoThe US Supreme Court made it illegal for states to ban gambling ads, as a first amendment issue. I think it was a bad decision.
- fc417fc802 7mo agoI wonder if they would overturn that if sufficient evidence of harm were demonstrated. They've been remarkably consistent about permitting violations of constitutional rights where the government can unambiguously demonstrate a pressing need.
- abcde666777 7mo agoI've always found the marketing around gambling (and most things really) completely disgusting. As a society I think we're far too tolerant of these things. A lot of the ads basically go along the lines of: 'you could win big and have a great time, awesome! (disclaimer: will probably ruin your life)'. It should be like it is with smoking - photos of lung cancer patients on the package. People will still do it of course but at least it's not falsely advertised. So the gambling ads should be things like, that moment where your wife finds out you've drained the family's savings and the house is about to be re-possessed. Yeah.
- snarfy 7mo agosouth park alcohol commercial https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6Cg8klY9JI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6Cg8klY9JI
- abcde666777 7mo agoI love Matt and Trey XD
- epolanski 7mo agoAnd gambling, same as prediction markets, has literally no positive social outcome.
- toraway 7mo agoOkay, but have you considered that thanks to Polymarket, society was able to intuit within mere minutes that Khamenei was most likely dead when the odds jumped to 99%? No more need to rely on MSM or governments, it's all just math and data (odds jumped entirely based on Reuters newswire update posting a quote from an unnamed Israeli source). And as a bonus, people lost a bunch of money "winning" that trade!
- xXSLAYERXx 7mo agoAt this point I question whether they should even be allowed to advertise.
- Invictus0 7mo agowhy can't we have a law that just caps your gambling losses? Everyone gets a federally issued gambling license tied to your ID, if you lose more than X amount the casino is no longer legally allowed to let you play. Casual gamblers can still enjoy, problem gamblers get cut off; just like with alcohol at the bar.
- santoshalper 7mo agoFor the same reason it isn't outlawed to begin with. It makes some wealthy, influential people even wealthier. They, not we, control our government.
- quickthrowman 7mo agoSomeone could create a market where problem gamblers can buy wagering power (the ability to risk more after reaching their own loss cap) from non-gamblers unless you force physical in person gambling with ID checks. Gambling should return to being legal in Vegas and on reservations, 24/7 gambling anywhere is very problematic.
- bluGill 7mo agoThey can but most non gamblers wouldn't partictpate. Many non gomblers won't particitate because they might go to vegas this year and so want the chance.
- fn-mote 7mo ago> Many non gomblers won't particitate because they might go to vegas this year I’m pretty sure you would see so many people selling their quotas that the price would be dirt cheap. At the most basic level: how many can afford to go to Vegas? This would be sure money. They’d take it when they need it.
- bluGill 7mo agovegas is cheap. Not free, but cheap to get to compared to most other tourist traps. There are a fair amout of free trips to vegas those hopes will keep a lot away. and most people have ethics and so would not sell. Maybe to someone in the family, but strangers.
- mothballed 7mo agoWhen online sports gambling started in the US they were offering $500-$1000 of free bets to sign up. Very tempting to sign up, even though I don't gamble anymore than about once a decade, but I decided whoever did that offer was probably smarter than me about who would win out in the end. I've been around the block long enough to know you never take an 'easy profit' deal from someone who is in the business of making money from them while in their own domain.
- xXSLAYERXx 7mo agoIt was truly a wild time. All the books desperate for action in this new online gambling world (US). I went from book to book, took "advantage" of their promos, never collected a dime. When I was up, I bet more. Hit zero? Go to the next book. Their lines were better anyway ;)
- Terr_ 7mo ago> while in their own domain There's a certain poker quip which I like to use and apply to other contexts, such as active investing: "If you look around the table can't tell which player is the sucker, you're the sucker." In other words, beware entering into a game where the rules ensure somebody will be victimized. This is especially true when many of the existing denizens spend much much more time and effort and finagling than you'll ever want to match. "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play." -- W.O.P.R, War Games (1983)
- AlotOfReading 7mo agoAll too often I look over at other tables and see that the suckers are friends and family.
- Loocid 7mo agoIt was actually free money assuming you had the resolve to stop once you claimed the bonus (presumably most people didnt). As long as you were laying the other side of your bet on an exchange you could extract the full value of your free bets risk free. I collected a few grand back then, however those sort of promotions are now illegal where I live.
- APDNixon37 7mo ago[dead]
- utopiah 7mo agoCan't wait to see how this (rather unsurprising yet important finding) is going to get abused for and with AI : "Hey, I see we haven't chat / you didn't vibe code for few days now, how about you get 1000 free tokens and we just see where that lead us?" It perfectly aligns with sycophantic interaction and then roulette outcome one gets, sure it might not work 100% of the time but it works most of the time and "I" as a user somehow "get it" more than AI researcher so "I" can get it to work for me. Brilliant.
- vlabakje90 7mo agoYou'll enjoy this one: “Parachute Use to Prevent Death and Major Trauma When Jumping from Aircraft: Randomized Controlled Trial.” BMJ, vol. 363, 2018, k5094. https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094
- shepherdjerred 7mo agoIs this real?
- hebelehubele 7mo agoIt likely is :). The participants jumped off of an airplane that was on the ground.
- razakel 7mo agoThe BMJ publishes an annual Christmas joke paper. For example, "The survival time of chocolates on hospital wards: covert observational study".
- hebelehubele 7mo ago> Conclusions Parachute use did not reduce death or major traumatic injury when jumping from aircraft in the first randomized evaluation of this intervention. However, the trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude jumps. When beliefs regarding the effectiveness of an intervention exist in the community, randomized trials might selectively enroll individuals with a lower perceived likelihood of benefit, thus diminishing the applicability of the results to clinical practice.
- tgtracing 7mo ago[dead]
- deaux 7mo agoI hate this kind of research. Or well, I hate that it has any influence at all, that it matters. This kind of research being that which shows an obvious harm that we all know about. It should have zero influence because it is blindingly obvious. Namely because if the title wasn't true, betting companies wouldn't be spending lots of money on it in the first place. But they are, as everyone who lives in the UK can tell. So we know. So this study shouldn't influence policy in the slightest. But it does. I hate it because there's by definition a gap of years between A. all of us knowing that a phenomenon is harmful B. the study coming out. And then another gap of many years between the study and actual policy changes. Here's my request to people in academia who do studies like these - which is admittedly a tiny percentage of academia. Just fudge the numbers and publish it a year earlier. Use LLMs to generate the text. It would be a huge boon to society. We all know it's true, so you're not doing anything wrong. Your quest for honesty is hurting everyone. The actual data is pointless. It's like gathering real data on whether pigeons will indeed eat sunflower seeds if thrown on the ground in front of them, versus just making it up. Maybe such a study hasn't been done yet, but it literally doesn't matter because we know the outcome. There's zero gain from actually doing the study versus saying that yes, pigeons will generally do so.
- akramachamarei 7mo agoPersonally, I prefer my authoritarianism without a side of academic misconduct, thank you very much.
- tim-projects 7mo agoFun fact: gambling companies increasingly also invest in mental health service companies, so that they can profit from both sides. That's what they mean when they say the house always wins.
- Obscurity4340 7mo agoHorizontal integration
- apt-apt-apt-apt 7mo agoStudy seems flawed– it preselects two different audiences (allow/not-allow offers mapping to something like low/high interest in gambling), then attributes the offers as the cause rather than the effect of selecting different audiences.
- systoll 7mo agoThe second paragraph of the article somewhat misrepresents the study. There wasn't a group that chose to opt out, and another group that chose not to. Everyone agreed to be in the study, and then a random half of the cohort was removed from the mailing lists. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.70369 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.70369
- Ghengeaua 7mo ago[dead]
- testemailfordg2 7mo agoIsn't it the same for tobacco and alcohol ads?
- mock-possum 7mo agoThat’s real interesting - being bombarded with offers is kind of a huge turnoff for me. Wonder if there’s some kind of correlation between that, and my general distaste for gambling/betting.
- Ancalagon 7mo agoThis feels like what the Robinhood app does to me