I have had family members addicted to drugs and/or alcohol and friends that have been addicted to gambling at various times. I've seen similar reactions anecdotally, but that isn't societal or scientific.
1) Dismissal: Feigning or having a profound misunderstanding of how statistics work by poking at the methodology like “N=200? That’s meaningless.”
2) Apathy: “So what if some people get addicted? We can’t babysit everyone.”
3) Rationalization: “Yeah but it helps Native American reservations, so...”
4) Downplaying: "Ok problem gambling is bad, but how prevalent is problem gambling really?"
My point absolutely wasn't that gambling has no known negative side effects. I was asking out of curiosity if there were studies someone could link to that actually tried to test it in a controlled way.
I believe it increased it about 10%.
Creating a campaign doesn't prove in anyway the specific problems caused by gambling, especially at the societal level. It only shows that there is a group willing to fund programs against gambling addictions.
In no way am I questioning the intent or value of such programs, I hope it doesn't read that way. It just isn't necessarily relevant with regards to evidence.
Second, these markets are generating new gambling addicts, which is wildly and provably detrimental to society.
This isn't true.
each 10 per cent increase in gambling expenditure in NSW results in more than
4,500 additional assaults
2,800 additional home break-ins
1,300 additional break and enter (non-dwelling) offences
1,400 additional motor vehicle thefts
2,300 additional stealing from motor vehicle thefts
3,800 additional fraud offences each year
> Stock market integrity is important because of their function in the economy
Some might argue that people - including gambling addicts, and those impacted by their addiction - might possibly be more important than one of many possible financial mechanisms for free enterprise.
The part the article OP linked to would be based off the line:
To put these percentage changes in terms of interest to policy makers, a 10% decrease in gambling expenditure in NSW would result in 4579 fewer ASS offences; 2867 fewer BESD offences; 1380 fewer BESND offences; 1398 fewer MVT offences; 2361 fewer SFMV offences; and 3793 fewer FRD offences 2 each yearThe search this led me down was quite illuminating, so source or not I do appreciate your comment.
It certainly is at scale.
If a huge enough portion of the population try to solve the statue quo of their economic problems by betting all on red, that's not gonna be great for society, including those who don't gamble.
What is the societal benefit provided by it?
How would you like it if people who didn't care about your hobby started questioning the social benefit of allowing you to do it?
In this hypothetical scenario, is my hobby actively harmful to society?
Some people would enjoy killing people but we don’t let them do that.
If some people who like gambling are harmful to society in other areas of their life, that's on them.
I've personally witnessed domestic violence from a gambler taking heavy losses as they realize they're about to be in a really bad place financially. I've never seen someone get violent over messing up a few rows of knitting.
In a counterfactual where someone was doing some gambling and not doing some domestic violence, would you be still upset about the gambling in and of itself? Who does it harm?
And sure, the same could be done with lots of things. But gambling is incredibly addictive.
I've watched family members gamble themselves into homelessness before. Isn't this a harm as well? Aren't the kids harmed when they lose their home and have no college savings despite the household having a net value of several million dollars a few years before?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not 100% against all forms of gambling. I gamble from time to time myself. What I'm against is this current wave of constant, relentless push of gambling into damn near everything, all the time. Back when gambling meant you'd have to go to the riverboat or fly halfway across the country or you're only dealing with small stakes poker between friends, its radically different to apps on our phones pushing notifications all the time, every sports game spending a significant amount of screen real estate to showing betting odds, news outlets talking about polymarkets all the time.
Could one have still been a problem gambler back before smartphone betting? Sure, one of those family examples I know about related to flying out to Vegas a few times a long time ago. But the rates of that happening were far lower before.
Perhaps society should continue to restrain such hobbies.
Yes, you should be allowed to do those things as long as you do it without harming others.
>How would you like it if people who didn't care about your hobby started questioning the social benefit of allowing you to do it?
Gambling? Is people questioning gambling a new thing? Seems like the opposite is the case. Again, this is where being purposefuly obtuse gets us.
Yes, of course.
Selling drugs is also a private transaction between two people that does no harm to anyone else.
If the people buying or selling drugs are harmful to others in the rest of their life, that's on them. It shouldn't be used as a fig leaf to negatively impact people who can buy and sell drugs responsibly.
Same as beer or any other drug - just a way to have some fun and not destructive provided you can control yourself.
Though, the one time I opened a CSGO gun case and felt the dopamine rush, it was way stronger than any drug I've done. Not that I'm a "highly-experienced individual", but alcohol, weed or adderall don't come close to a CSGO case. Gambling feels much riskier.
The costs to society due to alcohol and the like are massive for essentially no real benefit.
Yes, I know what happened during prohibition. That still doesn’t mean alcohol is good for society.
It's also the only vice you don't have to ingest an outside substance for.
to name a couple: gaming, prostitution (okay you might incidentally ingest an outside substance but YOU DON'T HAVE TO)
I used to believe that. With the legalization of all the sports betting and how fast it can drain a gambler which can then affect the gambler's family, I'm now pretty much on the other side of the fence.
Just like we banned public smoking because of the effects of secondhand smoke, I'm pretty convinced that the secondary effects of gambling means it needs to go back to being banned. I don't see an obvious way to legislate gambling to prevent the auxiliary victims. It doesn't help that getting maximum profit as a bookie means being part of a group of the scummiest people on the planet who will stoop to anything to drain people of their money as fast as possible.
> "We've done so much experimenting at Zynga with VIP. We know what's the frequency of contact. We know what call types work. We know what times to call. We know exactly who to call and when. We know who has a higher propensity to be more susceptible to our call."
You're encouraging people to waste their money just so that you can use the Wisdom of Crowds to predict something completely worthless.
If the risk taken can, in principle, be shifted in your favour (i.e. to produce positive expectation) through application of skill, then it isn't gambling. For example, in my mind, betting on whether you will win a game of chess is not gambling. On the other hand, if you cannot influence the outcome in your favour through skill, then it is gambling. Roulette is generally a good example of this (with the caveat that in some very specific circumstances it's possible to beat with skill).
If we're limiting the definition to merely risk-taking (you might win or you might lose) without factoring in skill, then virtually everything in life becomes gambling. For example, you gamble when you deposit money in the bank because it might go bust.
There's also the legal definition, in which case it's just a matter of checking whether the jurisdiction you are in considers the activity to be gambling or not.
If you can obtain an edge through a skill component (card counting in blackjack), some people wouldn't call this gambling anymore, but I would still call it gambling myself. Someone doing this for a living is a professional gambler.
What for me would be a sensible definition is that a bet/gamble has no other goals. Putting money in the bank/investing in a stock reallocates capital, which can be invested by someone. The fact that it is a risk-taking endeavor is merely a side effect. I would say the same goes for selling/buying insurance for your car.
So for me, the difference between betting and putting money in the bank/investing is that the primary goal is something different than the risk-taking activity.
It would be more accurate to say you're working, really: spending time and effort to earn money. Though the "work" here, assuming you're a skilled poker player sitting with lesser-skilled marks, is similar to a crypto bro performing a rug pull. You're enabling other participants to gamble in the hope of an uncertain win, while they actually are pretty much guaranteed to lose in a zero-sum game where the house will always earn its keep.
One could say that if everybody else at the table is gambling and you're working, it's still gambling. Lunch is lunch, whether you're the customer, the chef, or the lamb.
"real gambling", random game like Roulette
"unreal gambling", game with incomplete information like Poker which allows you to get a better outcome based on skill & experience
It’s the money aspect that makes it gambling. Just ask Pete Rose.
Prediction markets in general can make anyone feel like it’s about data and skills. If they lose, then they didn’t have the good enough information, so clearly they should improve their skill, right?
From my understanding, purely natural events aside, the probability of you betting against the “house” will always approach 1. If the platform is centralised, they have a strong incentive to influence the stakes, or (this has been documented) straight up limit your ability to bet if you are winning “too much”—enough to cost them real money. If the platform is open and decentralised, “house” is another player with much more capital and personal influence in the matter than you (for example, some president can bet that he would invade a country—and then invade it; some footballer can bet that he wouldn’t score N times—then score N-1 and fake an injury at the most favourable time; of course, they would use intermediaries, and only the careless ones will get burnt).
of course if you had the skill to win big why would you not make that your job thus making too much.
Saying that the house is playing the game against you is equivalent to saying that Nintendo is playing Super Mario Bros against you.
But even in player-banked games like poker, the house is an agent participating in the game through the dealer. They can still exercise their right to free association and not play with you.
A corrected analogy would be Nintendo banning you from Mario Kart Online for suspected cheating. Yes, Nintendo isn't playing, but they still have that authority as the facilitator.
e.g. a transaction to buy paper towels is not introducing risk, since I pay an amount and get something.
If I have a chance of not receiving those paper towels if I put money in, then it's considered gambling because the inherent activity introduces risk. It's the same reason the lootboxes were considered gambling at first, and the same reason I classify betting on a chess game as gambling. You're player may potentially not win.
As a general rule it is considered gambling not if skill is involved, but if there is any uncertainty involved.
And because there is not such thing as a perfect application of skill, all applications of skill have a degree of uncertainty to them. And you don't necessarily know how much your skill and luck will be in effect in the game.
In the context of Chess. Do you get to choose who you play against or is there a random draw? How close is the other player to you in skill? If you are both alike in skill then the skill application will be less important to the outcome.
I once lost a game at a tournament that had the rule that usage of en passant required saying en passant before doing it, so I was playing this guy whose skill was abysmal, we walked into a scenario where the very next move he did was going to allow me to do en passant, he had to take that move, or do something else that would lead to me taking his queen in the next move, and then folding up pretty all of his pieces and coming out two queens ahead. If he did the en passant move his position was worse, it was checkmate in like 10 moves.
If he had seen it and had any politeness and grace he would have just resigned. I mean it was extremely painful to have gotten into this position because it could be seen 20 moves before we were going to end up here and yet, he laboriously walked in to it, he could have gotten out before, by sacrificing a horse, and then a bit later he could have gotten out by sacrificing a horse and a knight, and then a horse and a knight and a castle, etc. etc. But nope, he just made move by stupid move into this position.
So then he made the move that I should make en passant with and ... I forgot the term "en passant" I couldn't remember the term to use, my brain froze, I probably let the clock run for ten minutes trying to remember the word, it's also not like I didn't know the move and the phrase, I had known it that 20 moves ago when I was thinking I do A, he do B I do C... and then en passant. But I couldn't remember.
Now if I had been not such a stickler for rules I might just have done it anyway hoping for him to accept and not require me to say it, but I didn't. So he won. Later my friend played him and he said "You lost to that guy?!" and I said "fuck I froze up and forgot the word to en passant, I had him setup to take all his stuff but because I forgot the word he had me. Damn it"
Despite differences of skill other factors can prevent the skill from being deployed to its greatest effect. If someone knew Bryan is skillful, but he does have a habit of choking up or sometimes losing focus in longer games, whereas that guy there sucks so the odds are 4 to 1 in Bryan's favor (which I was very much more skillful than this guy, so embarrassing), but that guy is skillful enough to drag it out a bit, and he will never give in, therefore it might make sense for me to bet a small amount in this case to leverage the uncertainty.
Because of course that kind of gambling is itself a form of skill.
If you only consider gambling on things that do not have any skill component, you then essentially say that gambling does not take any skill, which then leaves you with a large sphere of skilled activity, that many people have taken part in for many years of human society and that has traditionally been known as gambling, which now does not have a name to identify it.
What should this field of activity that you have rendered nameless by your fiat be called then?
Other forms of insider trading can be problematic: What if someone (could be an individual or even an uncoordinated group) bets millions of dollars on you not doing X, in the hopes of you taking the opposite bet and doing X?
The most extreme that I've seen presented so far are markets where people can predict the death date of a person. On the surface, that just seems like a morbid bet. Once you consider the above form of insider trading, you realize that this can act as a reward for someone who can accurately predict the death date of said person, for example because they're making the counter-trade from a phone next to a high-powered rifle on the rooftop across the street - and like in the bribe example above, the people on the "losing" side of the bet might not mind too much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_market
From their POV, that's the purest form of voting with money. If you do X, they're presumably happy with the outcome they just paid for; if you do the opposite of X, they at least have their payouts as consolation prize.
If the market is efficient and aware of the bribery effect, others will bet that you will do X up to the point where the indirect bribe is equal to the cost of you doing X. If you have private knowledge that a bribe would be taken, you probably have the access to do it far cheaper off market (and you can still use crypto).
If my grandmother had wheels she'd be a bike
But surely the answer is just that governments can and should ban prediction markets that are deemed to directly incentivize a crime. Where exactly to draw the line is challenging, sure, but no more challenging than all the other stuff that legal systems have to deal with. After all, pretty much any existing market (like stock markets) could be influenced by murdering certain people.
You may say "oh, but assassination markets are unique in that they're hard to ban those markets because they use cryptocurrencies and other decentralized/anonymous/censorship-resistant communication technologies." Well, okay, but if those technologies are so effective than people can already just run normal murder-for-pay markets.
Maybe a number of some kind?
And finally, here it is: The one guy who won the Venezuela bet by being hyperinformed-high-iq-predicting-the-future: https://futurism.com/future-society/polymarket-venezuela-ins...
(btw: you forgot to add AI and blockchain!)
Any sort of announced intention to "somehow stop the bad actors" became laughable after 2008-2009. We had bankers and financiers kick the monetary legs out from under an entire generation and unless they did something blatantly illegal (read: were Bernie Madoff) none of them faced a consequence.
That's why you have the current situation in the US where scammers can take advantage of distrust in any and all of society's institutions, up to and including the federal government.
With prediction markets? Next to impossible. The markets being tied to crypto makes it even worse - things get harder to track, jurisdictions get blurry, proving becomes a ping pong between bureaucracy. And proving something becomes moreso a question of free will - if I decided to do X and then someone bets millon dollars on me doing X when odds are low, how do you prove I haven't decided to do X before? Will you prevent me from exercising my free will because of suspect insider trading? What if I am a president/senator?
Years ago, I was a kid who discovered online betting - often it was the only time I could place bets on MMA events, especially because it wasn't as popular as it is now. Even then, the gambling sites had "Other" options where you could bet on presidents, popes, landing on mars etc. The new markets aren't that much different, but are just using a nicer way to talk about it.
It isn't gambling, it's prediction.
You aren't a gambler, you're a "hyperinformed high iq individual predicting the geopolitical moves". Just like crypto gave people the identity crutch of a "tech investor", this gives them the identity crutch of a "geopolitical strategist".
But in the end, it is still just gambling - wrapped in a nice ego stroking suit, but gambling none the less.