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

Will Supreme Court open a ‘dam burst’ of legalized sports betting?

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 106 posts

Re: Will Supreme Court open a ‘dam burst’ of legalized sports betting?

#91

Post by mmirate »

cm2012 wrote: post #87
mmirate wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, it's no doubt a mind-destroyer; that alone makes it quite scary to me, no need to contemplate its other effects. And I'll gladly forsake it quietly, and let those with excess affinity for it, use it to destroy themselves if they so desire. We didn't need such weak people anyway.

Society doesn't need such callous people as you.

Oh? And how else would society figure out that providing things to every warm body that claims to need them, is wasteful?

(Oh, wait, we're still socialistic in exactly that manner. So I'd say we need many more people like me. But that will have to wait 'till genetic engineering exits the drawing board...)

Re: Will Supreme Court open a ‘dam burst’ of legalized sports betting?

#92

Post by junkscience2017 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #90
junkscience2017 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but this really isn't true. This isn't tobacco, where people become addicted and then industry lies about the health implications. Everyone who gambles understands that sometimes you win and sometimes you lose, and if the casino lost more than they won, it wouldn't be a casino at all. No one is told they will always win. True, there is manipulation , but all advertising is based on manipulation, as is most…

It is. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-brain-get...

if you're really going to go that route you might as well legalize violent crimes too, after all, it's just us listening to our time-to-reproduce/time-to-fight signals

everywhere in society we are expected to overcome and be responsible for our base urges

Re: Will Supreme Court open a ‘dam burst’ of legalized sports betting?

#93

Post by junkscience2017 »

jeffdavis wrote: post #85
junkscience2017 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We allow daytrading, how is that different? We allow daytrading while you drink! Impaired daytrading! Soon in California you will be able to be under the influence of marijuana while you daytrade! If anything, I would like to see gambling completely in the open across the entire US. Prohibitions against it are a silly throwback. If you are an adult and want to spend your life savings on craps, go for it. If you lose…

Social safety nets mean that society bears some of the risk for your behavior, and thus has a strong incentive to restrict your freedom.

what social safety net? Bill Clinton's welfare reforms put a limit on the welfare you can receive and you do not get a pass for gambling away your house...or day trading it away either

Re: Will Supreme Court open a ‘dam burst’ of legalized sports betting?

#94

Post by dogruck »

mmirate wrote: post #72
dogruck wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I support the legalization of gambling, but you’re wrong. By analogy, that’s like saying only people who don’t understand the risk of unprotected sex have unprotected sex.

And that analogy is wrong because unprotected sex means not only STDs, but also pregnancies, and the latter are why such ignorant peoples' families continue to exist over generations. Gambling, on the other hand, does not impart any benefits whatsoever upon its sufferers, and that is why I argued it ought to be allowed for anyone stupid enough to want it.

Gambling does have benefits for some people.

Re: Will Supreme Court open a ‘dam burst’ of legalized sports betting?

#95

Post by mmirate »

dogruck wrote: post #94
mmirate wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that analogy is wrong because unprotected sex means not only STDs, but also pregnancies, and the latter are why such ignorant peoples' families continue to exist over generations. Gambling, on the other hand, does not impart any benefits whatsoever upon its sufferers, and that is why I argued it ought to be allowed for anyone stupid enough to want it.

Gambling does have benefits for some people.

Ah, pardon my imprecision; gambling, unlike reproduction, does not have any expected benefits for its sufferers.

Re: Will Supreme Court open a ‘dam burst’ of legalized sports betting?

#96

Post by Spooky23 »

junkscience2017 wrote: post #92
Spooky23 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-brain-get...

if you're really going to go that route you might as well legalize violent crimes too, after all, it's just us listening to our time-to-reproduce/time-to-fight signals everywhere in society we are expected to overcome and be responsible for our base urges

We recognize that people can cross a line where their inability to control violent behavior becomes a medical issue.

Re: Will Supreme Court open a ‘dam burst’ of legalized sports betting?

#97

Post by bpicolo »

mmirate wrote: post #73
bpicolo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And human brains are totally wired for gambling addiction.

Then what better way is there, other than legalizing gambling, to select-out-of-the-population those people who are weak-minded enough to become gambling addicts?

The narcissistic approach isn't going to serve you well.

Re: Will Supreme Court open a ‘dam burst’ of legalized sports betting?

#98

Post by mmirate »

bpicolo wrote: post #97
mmirate wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then what better way is there, other than legalizing gambling, to select-out-of-the-population those people who are weak-minded enough to become gambling addicts?

The narcissistic approach isn't going to serve you well.

Narcissism, eh? That's a new one.

There are probably several hundreds of millions of personnel who will produce more net-worth in their lifetimes than I will in mine (and who therefore have a greater right to their lives than I've to mine; but that's not important right now). Where in this thread have I made a claim about myself that was more extreme than that?

Re: Will Supreme Court open a ‘dam burst’ of legalized sports betting?

#99

Post by paulie_a »

Gravis187 wrote: post #56
paulie_a wrote: post #51

This is completely offtopic: But can anyone provide a name to a TV documentary/docudrama on "Point shaving" It was about some NCAA team and a guy that looked like he later in the sopranos. I think it was made by Fox.

I think you are talking about Blue Chips with Nick Nolte?

I don't think it was that. It was more focused on the college student bookie.

Re: Will Supreme Court open a ‘dam burst’ of legalized sports betting?

#100

Post by kodablah »

billysbeanes wrote: post #42
kodablah wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I too have considered this [0]. You don't really need to scrape, old data is there via retrosheet and current data is available as XML and JSON via gdx.mlb.com (e.g. for 2017 [1]). Of course, beware the terms of use, but if it's just for yourself, I'd say no prob. As for predictive analytics themselves, you can dig into all the metrics you want, but training/backcasting is how I'd approach it. 0 - https://github.com/…

Worth noting that this field is reaching diminishing returns due to analyses. You might be 2% better than a stock analysis, but that's usually not a sufficient edge to exploit profitably unless you're talking HUGE numbers. Finding a problem someone has, solving it with analysis, and offering to license/sell it to them (once it's proven to work) is probably more lucrative. Unless you're chasing the variable rewards sk…

Late response, but figured I'd mention that we have new variables now that we didn't always. Pitch FX, fielder location, etc. Not that it makes a huge different, but playing daily and averaging out over time, it can really affect matchups (again, over a large enough sample size).
Post reply on HN