401–410 of 424 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This would just push everyone to unlicensed casinos/bookmakers . Means no tax revenue + even worse player protection.
make this severely illegal with minimum two decades behind bars and what how they disappear… this is a very solvable problem which no one wants to solve
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it the worst example? Sure, the laws don't 100% prevent children from smoking, but certainly they have an effect. I'm not using it as an example of a perfectly effective law, I'm using it to make the point that it wouldn't be reasonable to say "parenting is the only defense against smoking" and scrap the law.
It's a bad example because the last 5+ years in UK/US have seen an epidemic of child vaping and nicotine addiction when it was illegal for them to have it, while the Tobacco companies fight tooth and nail against regulation on fruity flavours and bright colours. I don't want to scrap laws. In Britain we're 20 years ahead of the US on this (see Gambling Act 2005). Gambling laws are written by the gambling industry so…
And the UK is 20 years ahead of the US in regulation, by having introduced a law against gambling that's useless?
Okay...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's system working as intended. If there exist insiders with valuable information, engaging outsiders will just add noise to the signal. (It's why I wrote about two perspectives - preferring outsiders to insiders only makes sense if the goal is to create a gambling venue.)
And who will they be trading with?
For large/complex enough bets, you won't have a single group of people who know how things truly are - you'll have multiple groups of people who each have (or believe they have) a critical piece of the puzzle, possibly by proxy, that makes them think they have a crucial perspective - and those points of view will conflict, giving each such participant a reason to bet. Taken in aggregate, you get a system that pulls in all those perspectives and distills a single signal out of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And who will they be trading with?
Other insiders and people who think they know better? For large/complex enough bets, you won't have a single group of people who know how things truly are - you'll have multiple groups of people who each have (or believe they have) a critical piece of the puzzle, possibly by proxy, that makes them think they have a crucial perspective - and those points of view will conflict, giving each such participant a reason to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And who will they be trading with?
Other insiders and people who think they know better? For large/complex enough bets, you won't have a single group of people who know how things truly are - you'll have multiple groups of people who each have (or believe they have) a critical piece of the puzzle, possibly by proxy, that makes them think they have a crucial perspective - and those points of view will conflict, giving each such participant a reason to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only did you miss the point of the conversation entirely, you're attacking a point I explicitly addressed in my comment. I well understand how the system works, ggps comment had me confused about their perspective.
I didn’t miss the point at all. Once you’re in, unless you want to sell your stake, you’re in. But the entire point is that at the time of your bet, you’re taking a position that’s inherently disadvantaged. If there was any more EV to be gained, people with more money than you would have exhausted it. So without insider information, you’re flipping a coin but the house takes a cut.
In a perfect market that everyone participates in and in which everyone has perfect information, but not down here in messy reality. Your logic would have you you seeing a dollar on the ground and without further investigation go "Oh that can't be real, if it were someone would have picked it up already!" Or refusing to play chess against anyone because Magnus Carlsen could beat you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> just to be clear we are discussing gambling and not investing Where's the demarcation? The whole point of this sub-thread was "you absolutely can predict the outcome of some of these markets". If you do your due dilligence/leverage your domain knowledge to buy a thing you expect to pay dividends at a later date, how is that not investing? Are government bonds gambling in your thinking? Your prior about people actin…
Are you seriously trying to make a comparison between government bonds and prediction markets? What is wrong with you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you seriously trying to make a comparison between government bonds and prediction markets? What is wrong with you?
What's wrong with me is I'm autistic enough to expect people to be able to follow arguments. I did not say "There are no differences between Government Bonds and Prediction Markets", what I said was "Let's find where the line between gambling and investing is, here's an example from which to pick apart the features that make gambling vs investing".
I never said that you said that, so now you are just arguing with a straw man that you just created, and your lack of ability to understand that is going to make a productive conversation impossible. Good luck with your gambling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Re: 1b “public policy” is not law, so no it’s not “illegal” just against the betting site rules. Easily skirted by making the bet not directly about death, e.g. https://polymarket.com/event/trump-out-as-president-before-2... Re: 2c also applies to scenario 1, if you get caught you can’t retain the money. So, to your point about which is more regulated - there is no difference in the amount of regulation between the t…
>Re: 1b “public policy” is not law, so no it’s not “illegal” just against the betting site rules Not a lawyer, but jurisprudence (case law) is law, especially in Common Law jurisdictions like the US it has even more weight than actually codified law (unlike for example napoleonic Civil Law like in Argentina or France). "Restatement (Second) of Contracts" (1989), Chapter 8, has a pretty extensive list of restatement a…
So less regulation. Case 1 is the polymarket/kalshi case.
> It was a very basic mathematical claim, prediction markets include sports bets, so therefore they touch more regulations.
Uber is a taxi company and more. Uber is (or was) still less regulated than taxi industry.
You’re claiming it’s simple math, while grouping things that are categorically different into the same bucket.