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

U.S. Now Says All Online Gambling Illegal, Not Just Sports Bets

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 164 posts

Re: U.S. Now Says All Online Gambling Illegal, Not Just Sports Bets

#71

Post by existencebox »

perl4ever wrote: post #60
existencebox wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not believe this counters the OP's point. While the core purpose of financial markets may be beneficial vehicles like hedging and price discovery, the fact that the pragmatic outcome of the law is to leave wall street as one of the only outlets for "legalized betting" cannot be ignored. There is a sister post that in trying to argue against this only seems to support the point. "a house that always wins"; as has…

For those who believe in efficient markets, or markets that are rigged by hyper-intelligent people against the average investor, I'd like to call their attention to a bit of history recalled by Matt Levine in his column today: "Google announced that it was buying a private company called Nest, for instance, and the entirely unrelated stock of Nestor Inc. (ticker: NEST) was up 1,900 percent"

To be precise. I do not in any way believe in perfectly intelligent or omniscient markets. I do believe that large professional financial entities have mastered short-term trading to force things such as margin calls and other behaviors that an individual such as myself has no real tools against. This is what I mean when I say "the house wins" not that the market is in any way always correct. I assert that in any situation where an individual could make a bet, they are inherently competing in an uphill information-and-tool-asymmetry battle against far better equipped entities.

This explanation should be very familiar to those who have frequented groups like bogleheads that drink the indexing koolaid. (I admittedly do, as one could probably tell from the above)

Re: U.S. Now Says All Online Gambling Illegal, Not Just Sports Bets

#72

Post by mac01021 »

perl4ever wrote: post #60
existencebox wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not believe this counters the OP's point. While the core purpose of financial markets may be beneficial vehicles like hedging and price discovery, the fact that the pragmatic outcome of the law is to leave wall street as one of the only outlets for "legalized betting" cannot be ignored. There is a sister post that in trying to argue against this only seems to support the point. "a house that always wins"; as has…

For those who believe in efficient markets, or markets that are rigged by hyper-intelligent people against the average investor, I'd like to call their attention to a bit of history recalled by Matt Levine in his column today: "Google announced that it was buying a private company called Nest, for instance, and the entirely unrelated stock of Nestor Inc. (ticker: NEST) was up 1,900 percent"

I wonder if someone could use this phenomenon to get away with insider trading...

Re: U.S. Now Says All Online Gambling Illegal, Not Just Sports Bets

#73

Post by cowpig »

cphoover wrote: post #43

Sheldon Adelson = Big GOP money. "Adelson's newspaper, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, was the only major newspaper nationwide to endorse Trump.[42][43] Adelson was also the largest donor to Trump's inaugural celebrations, with a $5 million donation to the celebrations.[44]" -- Wikipedia

This is spot on.

The "word on the street" among lawyers I knew when the UIGEA[1] was passed in 2006 (which paved the way for black Friday[2]) was that Sheldon Adelson & the Vegas Lobby had pushed hard for this.

The long-term aim, in their opinions, was to capture the online gambling market on a state-by-state basis via regulatory capture, because they had already missed the boat and were being out-competed by Pokerstars et al.

It's no surprise that the regulations in e.g. New Jersey require a "partnership" with a land-based casino.

edit: also, I should note that Vegas probably shot themselves in the foot doing this (at least short-term). Online gambling brought a surge of business to Vegas, and though the recession had a lot to do with it, the banning of online poker definitely hurt them a lot.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_Internet_Gambling_Enf...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Scheinberg

Re: U.S. Now Says All Online Gambling Illegal, Not Just Sports Bets

#74

Post by ska »

LitFan wrote: post #69
andruby wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lotteries are reverse solidarity: a lot of people pay to make 1 person rich. Lotteries are my prime example when I want to highlight that humans don't act rationally

A possible explanation for why one would participate in a lottery: What if $5 per week for the rest of their life doesn't impact an individual's standard of living, but $10 million would drastically improve it? Does it then make (more) sense to participate?

Not in a strictly expected value sense, no. It's never going to be a rational choice from an financial point of view (i.e. there is always something else you can do with the $5 with better expected returns).

But if you get some other value out of it you place at least $5/wk utility on, sure. Maybe you get more utility out if it than a movie a month, or whatever.

Re: U.S. Now Says All Online Gambling Illegal, Not Just Sports Bets

#75

Post by coralreef »

KaoruAoiShiho wrote: post #53
joobus wrote: post #32

Except for stocks, bonds, options, futures, and forex. Wall St is the only authorized online gambling establishment.

Except those things actually fuel the economy and reward entrepreneurs vs enriching a "house" that contributes very little.

An underlying stock market is useful because it allows companies to raise capital to take risk. But many of those trading tools are just vehicles for speculative trading.

When I buy options contracts as a trader, I'm speculating the price will go up or down. I'm not adding anything productive to the economy. For me to win, another trader must lose.

Re: U.S. Now Says All Online Gambling Illegal, Not Just Sports Bets

#76

Post by shunders »

KaoruAoiShiho wrote: post #53
joobus wrote: post #32

Except for stocks, bonds, options, futures, and forex. Wall St is the only authorized online gambling establishment.

Except those things actually fuel the economy and reward entrepreneurs vs enriching a "house" that contributes very little.

How is a Wall Street firm taking fees any different from a casino taking a rake?

Re: U.S. Now Says All Online Gambling Illegal, Not Just Sports Bets

#77

Post by njarboe »

existencebox wrote: post #55
conbandit wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While there is some amount of speculation, it represents a small portion of the entire financial space. If you sincerely hold this view, you should take a closer look at the purpose of financial instruments and markets.

I do not believe this counters the OP's point. While the core purpose of financial markets may be beneficial vehicles like hedging and price discovery, the fact that the pragmatic outcome of the law is to leave wall street as one of the only outlets for "legalized betting" cannot be ignored. There is a sister post that in trying to argue against this only seems to support the point. "a house that always wins"; as has…

Gambling in the prediction market for the time-value-adjusted expected profits of a company is allowed due to the historical fact that stock markets used to be the way to raise capital for companies. I have only seen Tesla do this in the last 30 years (I'm sure there are others, but it is rare for a list company to actually sell stock to raise capital for building things). We should allow gambling in other prediction markets for things we would like to know about. Say the average surface temperature on Earth in 2100.

Re: U.S. Now Says All Online Gambling Illegal, Not Just Sports Bets

#78

Post by uberman »

jedberg wrote: post #57
scottlamb wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also online, state-sponsored lotteries. I'd consider lotteries (in general, not just online) more significant in terms of taking wealth away from people who can least afford it, and for no inherent legitimate purpose. (Lotteries fund education, but there are better ways to do that.)

> Lotteries fund education Even that is debatable. In just about every state, when they added a lottery "that funds eduction", they reduced the state contribution to the education budget by exactly the amount that was being added by the lottery. So while technically yes it goes to education, in reality it does not.

and almost all promises of governmental "revenues tied to expenses" work this way as well.

Re: U.S. Now Says All Online Gambling Illegal, Not Just Sports Bets

#79

Post by Pica_soO »

jedberg wrote: post #57
scottlamb wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also online, state-sponsored lotteries. I'd consider lotteries (in general, not just online) more significant in terms of taking wealth away from people who can least afford it, and for no inherent legitimate purpose. (Lotteries fund education, but there are better ways to do that.)

> Lotteries fund education Even that is debatable. In just about every state, when they added a lottery "that funds eduction", they reduced the state contribution to the education budget by exactly the amount that was being added by the lottery. So while technically yes it goes to education, in reality it does not.

Taking from those who dont know about statistics to give to those soon to know about statistics

Re: U.S. Now Says All Online Gambling Illegal, Not Just Sports Bets

#80

Post by conanbatt »

andruby wrote: post #68
scottlamb wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also online, state-sponsored lotteries. I'd consider lotteries (in general, not just online) more significant in terms of taking wealth away from people who can least afford it, and for no inherent legitimate purpose. (Lotteries fund education, but there are better ways to do that.)

Lotteries are reverse solidarity: a lot of people pay to make 1 person rich. Lotteries are my prime example when I want to highlight that humans don't act rationally

Reverse solidarity is not a problem. Its that lotteries are economically inefficient: what the 1 person gets is less than the sum of the parts, that is truly destructive.

OTOH, people pay for the dream of winning the lottery, which has some value, adicts withstanding.

Post reply on HN