Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Untitled topic

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 221 posts

Re: undefined

#31

Post by tunap »

bduerst wrote: post #24
ikeboy wrote: post #22

I wouldn't be against a law that prevented people from gambling large amounts of money unless they could prove the money was theirs. (ETA: whew, a quadruple negative.) The IRS could provide a form that confirmed that someone reported X amount of income, and you should only be allowed to gamble X-Y for some nominal value of Y. This wouldn't be that hard to enforce (the time isn't too significant when you're dealing wi…

Well, the SEC [kind of] already does this with accredited investors :)

The other casino, where market participants pay for the gamblers' losses AND gains.

Re: undefined

#32

Post by drzaiusapelord »

komon wrote: post #2

A really great short documentary on this subject is Louis Theroux's "Gambling in Las Vegas". His frank manner really cuts to the core of not only the length to which addicts will justify gambling but also to the lengths to which the casino employees justify their enabling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJRYUZbxwyA

Reminds of the strategies freemium devs employ where they do their best to snare "whales" who are players who will causally drop thousands of dollars on various in-game powerups and skins. There was a report a few months ago claiming these players are responsible for 70% of an app's revenue!

I imagine its similar for casinos, so they have no real incentive to actually stop addiction as addicts are their revenue generating "whales."

Re: undefined

#33

Post by Kenji »

acedinlowball wrote: post #26
Kenji wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Any bank with sane procedures would never approve such a thing.

Can you share more of your experiences working in the banking industry?

Sure, what do you want to know? My time at the bank was brief (I like tech more) but I got at least some insight.

Re: undefined

#34

Post by sanswork »

ikeboy wrote: post #22

I wouldn't be against a law that prevented people from gambling large amounts of money unless they could prove the money was theirs. (ETA: whew, a quadruple negative.) The IRS could provide a form that confirmed that someone reported X amount of income, and you should only be allowed to gamble X-Y for some nominal value of Y. This wouldn't be that hard to enforce (the time isn't too significant when you're dealing wi…

What happens when I show up from overseas to gamble? How do I prove I am from overseas and not just someone that isn't bringing their IRS form?

Re: undefined

#35

Post by kirykl »

digler999 wrote: post #23

I've worked at 3 gaming manufacturers including implementing the payout table. Near misses were never coded into the design. If they did occur, they were consequences of the way the reels were physically laid out. That choice was made from an excel sheet that outlines how many types of each award were expected. The primary statistics the mathematicians cared about were volatility (std deviation) and hold percentage.…

Examples of a near miss that are indeed part of the design:

- third wheel spins that change visuals/audio to enhance anticipation of landing that last needed symbol

- symbols that look very close to eachother

- symbols that appear to be stopping then move at the last moment

- bonus wheels with false probabilities, or fake-out stops at high value slices

- pre-determined picking on features

Re: undefined

#36

Post by grzm »

Kenji wrote: post #4
gambiting wrote: post #3

"and lost all of a $110,000 personal loan he’d taken out from PNC Bank." The man had no job, maxed out credit card, and a bank gave him a loan of 110k? Am I crazy to think this is insane on the bank's behalf?

No. Any bank with sane procedures would never approve such a thing.

Definitions of sanity aside, whether or not its a "good" idea is a matter of perspective. The 2008 financial crises showed how a lot of money can be made with no real repercussions approving loans, so probably looked like a very good idea to those who profited. Same with the S&L crisis in the 80s and 90s.

Re: undefined

#37

Post by tunap »

lujim wrote: post #29
yarou wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of opiates, substituted amphetamines, and cocaine were available OTC for a myriad of ailments. Many Vietnam veterans were treated in hospitals with heroin, yet they didn't become addicted. What it boils down to is that the addict is unable to achieve homeostasis with their environment. Unfulfilling relationships (both romantic and platonic), financial burdens, lack of a job, lack of intimacy all con…

Maybe, although I do believe that tons of good science has chimed in on the role of dopamine in the human brain. Give a smoker some chantix without alleviating their financial burdens or changing "the system" in any way and watch how long it takes them to want nothing to do with cigarettes. There is a complex biological process at work here that plenty of smart people spend their entire lives trying to understand.

Substituting one drug for another to treat a psychological or behavioral deficiency has been a popular prescription for a long time, and reciditivism has prevailed in a majority of cases, upwards of 90 percentile in alcohol and opiate abusers. JGI if you need sources, though those numbers are actively obfuscated to serve the practitioners, pharmas & lawmakers' self-interests; my knowledge comes from shared 1st hand experiences of acquaintances in ER, behavioral sciences & addiction treatment center personnel over the last 30 years.

edit: spell checker changed psychological to something u related & I added how long I've known these people.

Re: undefined

#38

Post by tomjen3 »

ikeboy wrote: post #22

I wouldn't be against a law that prevented people from gambling large amounts of money unless they could prove the money was theirs. (ETA: whew, a quadruple negative.) The IRS could provide a form that confirmed that someone reported X amount of income, and you should only be allowed to gamble X-Y for some nominal value of Y. This wouldn't be that hard to enforce (the time isn't too significant when you're dealing wi…

I have a huge horse in this fight, because I work for an online casino/slot machine manufacture. The following is my opinion, bl.a

I know at least one physical casino where the tax authorities are very happy looking the other way, as patrons gamble tons of dirty cash. They do look very intently on the income and track it carefully because there is a percentage fee on gambling. Presumably that is why people are allowed to gamble freely.

I can come up with a few arguments against your idea - on the balance it is sound, but what should the limit be on "nominal"?

I can go to the cinema on a weekly basis, which with ticket prices, popcorn and other concessions can be quite an expensive hobby, or I can hit the casinos a couple times a year where I could spend the same amount of money - it is all entertainment and who is to say one is better for me than the other?

I don't know any country that has a limit on how much alcohol you can buy at a time (most have age restrictions, some have time and place restrictions, some won't sell you if you are already drunk), yet there are alcoholics in any place. Should we ban or limit alcohol to some nominal amount? If not, why should we treat gambling differently?

That said, I am all about making it easy for people to see how much they have spent, and of course be honest upfront.

Re: undefined

#39

Post by Kenji »

grzm wrote: post #36
Kenji wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Any bank with sane procedures would never approve such a thing.

Definitions of sanity aside, whether or not its a "good" idea is a matter of perspective. The 2008 financial crises showed how a lot of money can be made with no real repercussions approving loans, so probably looked like a very good idea to those who profited. Same with the S&L crisis in the 80s and 90s.

I worked at a bank before, throughout and after the 2008 financial crisis. That bank wouldn't have dared to give a broke and jobless person a loan, not a penny. Unless there are good reasons to assume it can be paid back, like securities in the form of a house or shares.

Re: undefined

#40

Post by grzm »

Kenji wrote: post #39
grzm wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitions of sanity aside, whether or not its a "good" idea is a matter of perspective. The 2008 financial crises showed how a lot of money can be made with no real repercussions approving loans, so probably looked like a very good idea to those who profited. Same with the S&L crisis in the 80s and 90s.

I worked at a bank before, throughout and after the 2008 financial crisis. That bank wouldn't have dared to give a broke and jobless person a loan, not a penny. Unless there are good reasons to assume it can be paid back, like securities in the form of a house or shares.

I know of banks that wouldn't have approved loans like that, either. However, some banks did, and made money doing so. Many banks don't keep the loans they approve on their own books.
Post reply on HN