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

Pro bettors disguising themselves as gambling addicts

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 311 posts

Re: Pro bettors disguising themselves as gambling addicts

#211

Post by dkrich »

adw wrote: post #88
dkrich wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is backwards. Casinos offer huge cross subsidization opportunities like getting people to spend lots of money in clubs and bars or gamble on games like slots that have a huge house edge while apps have near zero cross subsidization opportunities and massive overhead. An app running at draftkings scale costs a lot to operate. I’ve believed for a long time and continue to that the math on these businesses just doe…

> I’ve believed for a long time and continue to that the math on these businesses just doesn’t work. Particularly for Las Vegas, the business may not be what you think it is. Vegas is, amongst other things, a global money laundrette.

Casinos are a proven business and have their highs and lows but will be fine. I’m talking specifically about betting apps. The fact that casinos have barely even entered the online space tells you all you need to know about how profitable it is

Re: Pro bettors disguising themselves as gambling addicts

#212

Post by dkrich »

glenngillen wrote: post #158
dkrich wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is backwards. Casinos offer huge cross subsidization opportunities like getting people to spend lots of money in clubs and bars or gamble on games like slots that have a huge house edge while apps have near zero cross subsidization opportunities and massive overhead. An app running at draftkings scale costs a lot to operate. I’ve believed for a long time and continue to that the math on these businesses just doe…

They've existed in other jurisdictions for decades and seem to be doing very well financially.

Not with the overhead of a draftkings or fanduel

Re: Pro bettors disguising themselves as gambling addicts

#213

Post by dkrich »

RobRivera wrote: post #119
dkrich wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is backwards. Casinos offer huge cross subsidization opportunities like getting people to spend lots of money in clubs and bars or gamble on games like slots that have a huge house edge while apps have near zero cross subsidization opportunities and massive overhead. An app running at draftkings scale costs a lot to operate. I’ve believed for a long time and continue to that the math on these businesses just doe…

Its not a matter of belief its a matter of math. Their net income is either positive or negative

Yes and it’s negative

Re: Pro bettors disguising themselves as gambling addicts

#214

Post by alphazard »

Clearly the problem in all of this is that these markets are rigged. Imagine if the most knowledgeable investors were banned from trading stocks, or had artificially low bankrolls. It wouldn't be practical for individuals to invest in the market because everyone would assume they were getting ripped off, and the price was totally separated from the value of the business.

The fact that the most successful investors have the largest effect on the price is exactly what makes the market fair. A layman can login to manage their 401k, put in a market order, and know they are getting a fair price because many people, much more knowledgeable than the layman, are competing to set the price.

Re: Pro bettors disguising themselves as gambling addicts

#215

Post by rawgabbit »

harlanlewis wrote: post #206
ssharp wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oddly enough, several professional sports gamblers were aware of a NBA referee manipulating game from their data analysis, well before the NBA became aware of it. That was probably 10+ years ago and I suspect data analysis by the leagues is much stronger now. Still an insane line that needs to be walked between the leagues getting revenue from the sportsbooks and gambling not impacting that play.

Tim Donaghy (ref): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Donaghy

I don’t know how much cheating by referees has got to with it. But many years ago I found the NBA to be a foul shooting contest and gave up on it. It is unwatchable.

Re: Pro bettors disguising themselves as gambling addicts

#216

Post by [deleted] »

dehugger wrote: post #172
caeril wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gambling is the only way for some of us to make Sportsball interesting, and attempt to fit in with the absurdist normie culture in which we live. Realistically, there's nothing particularly interesting about the Dallas Frackers versus the Washington Rentseekers. But if you have money on the outcome, watching a game (with a sufficient supply of alcohol) is actually bearable. Edit: I'm explaining a real, actual reason…

If you loathe sports that much why are you forcing yourself to watch them? "Fitting into absurdist normie culture" is ludicrous. Are you not capable of making friends without drunkenly feigning interest in their hobbies?

[deleted]

Re: Pro bettors disguising themselves as gambling addicts

#217

Post by groby_b »

caeril wrote: post #192
dehugger wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you loathe sports that much why are you forcing yourself to watch them? "Fitting into absurdist normie culture" is ludicrous. Are you not capable of making friends without drunkenly feigning interest in their hobbies?

Short answer: No, I'm not. People are generally extremely intolerant of others who deviate slightly from the norm. Having friends is a fun fantasy, though.

You might invest some of that money into therapy instead, then.

It's perfectly possible to find friends who aren't into "sportsball", but it takes more than paying an entry fee so you're allowed to hang.

Re: Pro bettors disguising themselves as gambling addicts

#218

Post by chowells »

thfuran wrote: post #114
consteval wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a big slippery slope here. Who says we need to keep going? That's not a hypothetical question - who says? Why would we do that? I agree regulation is good, but prohibition is a type of regulation. There're also levels of prohibition - you don't need to prohibit all of it, maybe just the most obviously harmful. Like you can ban online gambling but keep casinos if you want. I don't know, I don't have the analys…

>Who says we need to keep going? That's not a hypothetical question - who says? Why would we do that? Why wouldn't we? If we're legally precluding people from hobbies that could harm them, there's always going to be a worst legal one.

Because we're reasonable humans and capable of saying "if that's the worst, we're fine"?

Re: Pro bettors disguising themselves as gambling addicts

#219

Post by hirvi74 »

ordu wrote: post #199
hirvi74 wrote: post #117

Much like many substance use disorders, I am inclined the to believe the substance is merely a self-medication technique for a deeper rooted issue. I am curious what about the gambling makes it so addictive? I refuse to believe that people are addicted solely because of bro-science's elementary understanding dopamine. What makes people continue despite the negative consequences in their lives? Is it the hope? The hop…

> There has to be something deeper to gambling addiction. If so, then what is it? I believe that B.F.Skinner and his pigeons answered this question. As a legend tells us, once upon a time Skinner's apparatus that controlled reinforcements for his pigeons got broken. But Skinner didn't noticed it and went home to sleep. In the morning when he came to his lab, he watched how a pigeon did weird things in his cage. The p…

Interesting. According to the Wikipedia page for Problem Gambling^1, what you posted certainly plays a role. At least, for many individuals.

The intro section states that gambling addiction is an addiction and not an impulse control disorder because:

"the behaviors in problem gambling and most primary substance use disorders (i.e., those not resulting from a desire to "self-medicate" for another condition such as depression) seek to activate the brain's reward mechanisms while the behaviors characterizing obsessive-compulsive disorder are prompted by overactive and misplaced signals from the brain's fear mechanisms."

The psychological mechanism paragraph states:

"Several psychological mechanisms are thought to be implicated in the development and maintenance of problem gambling. First, reward processing seems to be less sensitive with problem gamblers. Second, some individuals use problem gambling as an escape from the problems in their lives (an example of negative reinforcement). Third, personality factors such as narcissism, risk-seeking, sensation-seeking, and impulsivity play a role. Fourth, problem gamblers have several cognitive biases, including the illusion of control, unrealistic optimism, overconfidence and the gambler's fallacy (the incorrect belief that a series of random events tends to self-correct so that the absolute frequencies of each of various outcomes balance each other out). Fifth, problem gamblers represent a chronic state of a behavioral spin process, a gambling spin, as described by the criminal spin theory."

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

Re: Pro bettors disguising themselves as gambling addicts

#220

Post by sangnoir »

nradov wrote: post #196
twobitshifter wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NBA bans Jontay Porter after gambling probe shows he shared information, bet on games. “Porter took himself out of that game after less than three minutes, claiming illness, none of his stats meeting the totals set in the parlay. The $80,000 bet was frozen and not paid out, the league said, and the NBA started an investigation not long afterward.” https://apnews.com/article/nba-jontay-porter-banned-265ad5cb...

It seems crazy that he would risk his career over a bet considering that his regular player salary was so much higher than $80K.

People who cheat often don't consider scenarios where they get caught.
Post reply on HN