Live data from Hacker News

9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

azmirror.com

91–100 of 184 posts

Re: 9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

#91
post #10

> “Congress did not take a wrecking ball to all sports gambling regulations built up over decades by federal, state, and tribal governments when it amended the (Commodity Exchange Act),” Judge Ryan Nelson wrote in the unanimous decision. Incredible that it's taken this long to arrive at the obvious.

Gambling is a negative externality that needs to be taxed. Gambling takes advantage of the poor, under-educated, and addictive personalities and puts them into financial distress. This places burden on families, the state, and local municipalities. It creates strain on the workforce and deflects legitimate economic activity that would otherwise strengthen the economy. We're a free society. I'm fine with gambling from…

Your argument of course sounds nice and fails under your inability to define "gambling."

I view favored house-odds, on arbitrary games or not, as unethical and predatory. This is the classic casino slot machine and related. However, Poker doesn't have house odds, it is a fair game.

Move one level up: prediction markets don't have house-odds if implemented plainly. On non-game events, they also have a positive externality, which already contradicts your claim: prediction markets predict quite well.

Yet another level up: investing in the stock market. The same authentic gambler who burns money into a slot machine can play the stock market to similarly disastrous ends. But if you define this as gambling and want to outlaw or limit it to 'professionals' then you bar people from capital markets which is absurd.

Re: 9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

#92

(Not American) What does 9th circuit or some circuit court mean? It some name of a specific court, just not the place name? Or is it special kind of court and “9” is some sort of level? Importance or hierarchy related? Escalation level? (Assuming your SC eventually is also at the top like in India)

From my hazy recollection from law school, the US appeals courts are called "circuits" because back in the day, they weren't actual buildings but rather judges that would go around town-to-town within their jurisdiction in a horse-drawn carriage 'in a circuit' (that corresponded to a certain geographic area). The name just stuck even after they were permanently enshrined into physical structures (each corresponding to a given region).

Re: 9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

#93

Lawyer here - As i explained last time we had a variant of this thread (see comment history if you are interested), this is a very complicated area that people try to make very simple. It doesn't have to be complicated, mind you, but right now the way the law is written is basically: 1. Transmitting sports betting info between states is a federal crime unless it's legal in both states (18 U.S.C. § 1084(a)) 2. The CEA…

> because Kalshi doesn't want to follow the actual law Correction: because the federal government doesn't want Kalshi to follow the actual law. CFTC ordered Kalshi to continue operating in NY when NY tried to crack down on it. Donald Trump Jr. is a paid advisor for Kalshi. The US Government's conservative leaders are ignoring states' rights in order to personally profit, using Kalshi as a tool. > this will end up at…

> We can't keep pretending it's normal for SCOTUS to decide everything about our society.

That's not what this is. As the 9th Circuit points out, states already have quite extensive laws about gambling. We don't need Congress to step in to either reinforce or displace them. The courts are doing their job by ruling on existing laws.

Re: 9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

#94
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn’t fully explain why Congress has allowed the expansion of executive power for nearly a century, resulting in more and more major issues being pushed to the Supreme Court. It's because the US is a presidential republic with no concept of a non-confidence vote. This makes the sitting head of the party ~impossible to remove, and when government fails to reach consensus, instead of... Having an election, and l…

I am not sure a vote of non-confidence would have helped here — there are only two parties.

> I am not sure a vote of non-confidence would have helped here — there are only two parties.

But why are there only two parties?

The rest of the Anglosphere–Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK–have multiparty systems–some are more multiparty than others, but none of them have the hard two-party system that the US has, in which third parties have a very marginal role (not completely marginal – e.g. in a close election, the decisions of New York's Conservative and Working Families parties can make a real difference to the outcome – but certainly at a national level third parties have no real power in the US.)

First-past-the-post is a popular explanation, but it can't by itself explain it, since the UK and Canada use it, yet lack a US-style hard two party system (and with the rise of the Reform party in the UK, the British system is becoming less two-party than it has been in a long time.)

Re: 9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

#95

Lawyer here - As i explained last time we had a variant of this thread (see comment history if you are interested), this is a very complicated area that people try to make very simple. It doesn't have to be complicated, mind you, but right now the way the law is written is basically: 1. Transmitting sports betting info between states is a federal crime unless it's legal in both states (18 U.S.C. § 1084(a)) 2. The CEA…

> That will be a coin flip I call $50 on Tails!

I call $50 on Whonix

Re: 9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

#96

Lawyer here - As i explained last time we had a variant of this thread (see comment history if you are interested), this is a very complicated area that people try to make very simple. It doesn't have to be complicated, mind you, but right now the way the law is written is basically: 1. Transmitting sports betting info between states is a federal crime unless it's legal in both states (18 U.S.C. § 1084(a)) 2. The CEA…

> That will be a coin flip I call $50 on Tails!

Seems like something there could be a prediction market for on Kalshi.

Re: 9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When was the last time you saw an ad for cigarettes? Those second-order effects are easy to mitigate with sensible public policy. And it's not like we have to invent the solution from scratch — we've done it before, very effectively.

This is the correct reply to the constant "but whatabout" replies, that inevitably come up whenever you suggest regulation. "You've regulated bad thing X, but then they'll do Y!" So regulate Y! It's not like legislators only get one crack at a law. We should elect a government willing to move fast and iterate when loopholes are uncovered.

The thing is that US Congress can't make laws. It just can't. It's nonfunctional. When it does that's the rare exception, and it better be perfect the first time because you won't get so lucky twice.

Re: 9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

#98
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> companies need to pay 40-50% of their gross revenue to the government. That's comparable to tobacco. taxing a vice is worth it on paper, but the second-order effects (nonstop alcohol ads, pervasive gambling app dark patterns) aren't worth it imo

You can't tax revenue in sports gambling markets, it actually just leads to predatory gambling products with massive vig/house edge. This was attempted in Tennessee. Margins are extermely low sports betting, like 4.5%. Its actually a loss leader typically. So for casinos that only have this type of wagering it taxes like this aren't going to work. A casino might turn over 50 billion yearly but only have a 2.5% edge i…

Why do you assume the tax is on bets and not on profits

Re: 9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

#99
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By a strict definition of gambling, the stock market is gambling: It's a monetary wager placed on an unknown future event. Just because it (often) is positive sum doesn't mean it isn't an unknown that people are betting money on.

Pointing that out makes as much sense as "so you're against drugs? Did you know Tylenol is a drug? Ha checkmate!"

Great example, because Tylenol is more dangerous than nearly every illegal drug.

Re: 9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

#100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which we called the "stock market"

The problem with this comparison is that it only really serves to water down the very real harms of actual gambling. Unlike sports gambling or casinos, the stock market actually does have some legitimate utility, as compared to being (at best) pure entertainment.

At what ratio does it become a problem? 0.01% actual utility and 99.99% gambling, or?
Post reply on HN