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

America’s bad bet on expanding legal sports gambling

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 102 posts

Re: America’s bad bet on expanding legal sports gambling

#11

Post by fbdab103 »

denkmoon wrote: post #7

Look at Australia for a cautionary tale on letting gaming companies do as they please. I've worked in the industry and I'm very much on the side of letting people gamble if they choose to do so, but _everywhere_ in our society is just plastered with ads for it. The volume of ads for gambling during a sports events can sometimes exceed the actual commentary on the event. I'd ban gambling ads, and I'd ban pokies (tange…

For anyone else who does not speak Aussie, a pokie is a video poker or slot machine.

Re: America’s bad bet on expanding legal sports gambling

#12

Post by benatkin »

Some of it seems like gambling minus the fun. Especially when people bet on sports online anonymously against strangers. Still, just because it doesn't sound fun to me doesn't mean it isn't fun. Maybe they tell their stories to friends and still have social experiences, or it heightens the experience of following sports with friends.

Re: America’s bad bet on expanding legal sports gambling

#13

Post by edmundsauto »

woooooo wrote: post #5
andrenotgiant wrote: post #4

I know nothing about FanDuel and DraftKings, or sports betting in general. Do FanDuel and DraftKings only make money on fees, or are there also situations where , like in a Casino, you're playing against the house? Also, I bet there are SWE's from FanDuel and DraftKings on HN. No judgement I would love to hear how you see things from the inside.

Everyone's playing against the house, but the house sets lines and odds with a goal of getting 50% of bettors on either side of the bet for a guaranteed profit.

This is a clean narrative and a reasonable starting assumption, but not necessarily accurate. House bookies are trying to maximize their earnings, not limit themselves to the rake.

For example, certain teams have fans that bet on the team as a show of support rather than betting wisely. The house will identify these positions so they can take advantage, rather than letting the other side of the bet make most of the cash on bad bets.

Re: America’s bad bet on expanding legal sports gambling

#14

Post by jcranmer »

agentwiggles wrote: post #2

Meanwhile, states and cities are trying to illegalize vaping while leaving cigarettes on shelves, not to mention continuing the criminally stupid "war on drugs" in ways too myriad to count while retaining one's sanity. _sigh_

In all seriousness: where are e-cigarettes more restricted than cigarettes?

Re: America’s bad bet on expanding legal sports gambling

#15

Post by nyjah »

iainmerrick wrote: post #9
andrenotgiant wrote: post #4

I know nothing about FanDuel and DraftKings, or sports betting in general. Do FanDuel and DraftKings only make money on fees, or are there also situations where , like in a Casino, you're playing against the house? Also, I bet there are SWE's from FanDuel and DraftKings on HN. No judgement I would love to hear how you see things from the inside.

Until sports betting was legalised in the US, FanDuel and DraftKings specialised in fantasy football, where you pay to enter competitions against other players. The winning players split the prize money, the company takes any money left over. For legal reasons the prize pot was fixed so if not enough people entered a contest the company would have to eat the loss. That was arguably not sports betting, therefore legal…

Until sports betting was legalised in the US, FanDuel and DraftKings specialised in fantasy football

Not to be pedantic, but they specialized in 'daily fantasy', which differs from general 'fantasy football'. In daily fantasy, you are given a budget, players are given a value and you draft every week. In regular fantasy football, you draft once at the beginning of the year and manage that team for the rest of the season.

Re: America’s bad bet on expanding legal sports gambling

#16

Post by jamesfinlayson »

denkmoon wrote: post #7

Look at Australia for a cautionary tale on letting gaming companies do as they please. I've worked in the industry and I'm very much on the side of letting people gamble if they choose to do so, but _everywhere_ in our society is just plastered with ads for it. The volume of ads for gambling during a sports events can sometimes exceed the actual commentary on the event. I'd ban gambling ads, and I'd ban pokies (tange…

I live in Australia too and I think the government letting pretty much any company that wants a wagering license have one is problematic.

I'm sure there were problem gamblers 30 years ago when TAB was the only player but it feels like these days there's a new player entering the market every month, and they're getting increasingly desperate to make a profit in what is already a flooded market.

Re: America’s bad bet on expanding legal sports gambling

#17

Post by justinator »

fbdab103 wrote: post #11
denkmoon wrote: post #7

Look at Australia for a cautionary tale on letting gaming companies do as they please. I've worked in the industry and I'm very much on the side of letting people gamble if they choose to do so, but _everywhere_ in our society is just plastered with ads for it. The volume of ads for gambling during a sports events can sometimes exceed the actual commentary on the event. I'd ban gambling ads, and I'd ban pokies (tange…

For anyone else who does not speak Aussie, a pokie is a video poker or slot machine.

"Pokey" in old slang meant a jail cell. "Throw you into the pokey"

a pokie is a video poker or slot machine

Ah! You mean a, "fruit machine"?

Re: America’s bad bet on expanding legal sports gambling

#18

Post by vorpalhex »

jcranmer wrote: post #14
agentwiggles wrote: post #2

Meanwhile, states and cities are trying to illegalize vaping while leaving cigarettes on shelves, not to mention continuing the criminally stupid "war on drugs" in ways too myriad to count while retaining one's sanity. _sigh_

In all seriousness: where are e-cigarettes more restricted than cigarettes?

I'm going to give you the official reasons, because I do believe that is the "why" for most people who want to ban them:

They are more attractive to kids.

Tobacco is an acquired taste. I enjoy a yearly cigar but even it can be a bit strong for me.

Vaping has flavors and is smooth and gentle.

The problem here is not just that cigs are worse for you than vaping. Kids smoke because smoking is rebellious behavior. Making vaping illegal will only make it more rebellious. Also nicotine is a pretty solid fix for anxiety which kids are full of.

There is a an alternative argument that vaping bans are due to tobacco industry insiders. Honestly though they would probably refer to capture profits than ban them.

Vaping is relatively safe, esp compared to tobacco. My two pack a day mother who smoked since she was 14 moved entirely to vaping and got her nicotine habit very under control. This was a woman who got in trouble for smoking in a hospital bed pregnant yet was willing to forego her vape for four hours without even a complaint last time she had to fly.

Re: America’s bad bet on expanding legal sports gambling

#19

Post by GlacierFox »

In the UK its a real problem. I've just watched a TV show on a national TV catchup streaming service (UKTV Play). I've just had to sit through 4 minutes of ads and every single one of them was for a different gambling company. It's plastered all over billboards too. Even major daytime TV shows are sponsored by gambling organisations to get those grannies in too (Foxy Bingo). It's sickening and I feel most people are blind to what is actually going on.

Re: America’s bad bet on expanding legal sports gambling

#20

Post by jcranmer »

vorpalhex wrote: post #18
jcranmer wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In all seriousness: where are e-cigarettes more restricted than cigarettes?

I'm going to give you the official reasons, because I do believe that is the "why" for most people who want to ban them: They are more attractive to kids. Tobacco is an acquired taste. I enjoy a yearly cigar but even it can be a bit strong for me. Vaping has flavors and is smooth and gentle. The problem here is not just that cigs are worse for you than vaping. Kids smoke because smoking is rebellious behavior. Making…

I didn't ask why people want to ban e-cigarettes; I asked where are they controlled more severely than cigarettes (and I don't consider flavor bans to be more severe than controls on cigarettes, since cigarettes themselves have rules on their composition which include flavor!)
Post reply on HN