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

9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

azmirror.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 184 posts

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

#161

Post by gamblor956 »

msandford wrote: post #128
DannyBee wrote: post #19

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…

Isn't this also more unique since they're trading futures contracts vs whatever a traditional sports bet is? I thought it was kind of a clever end run around the law where taking down their gig would also mean that you have to attack commodities futures contracts as well and that the Congress would be loathe to do that lest they accidentally outlaw the stock market. When I say "clever" I don't mean"good" I mean "craf…

It's not clever at all.

Congress didn't eliminate the federal prohibition on sports gambling when they created the CFTC. Ergo, it is clear that Congress did not intend for sports gambling transactions to be within the jurisdiction of the CFTC.

The only clever thing they did was putting members of the Trump family on their board.

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

#162

Post by gamblor956 »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #34
DannyBee wrote: post #19

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…

Unless Congress passes a law so SCOTUS doesn't have to.

Congress doesn't need to pass a new law. Federal gambling laws were not removed from the books when Congress created the CFTC because they did not intend for gambling transactions to be regulated by the CFTC. (Federal gambling laws were not struck down until 2018, by SCOTUS, on First Amendment grounds. Yes, the decision was written by one of the justices known to have accepted gifts from companies doing business before the Court.)

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

#163

Post by gamblor956 »

inigyou wrote: post #99
gruez wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Today I learned on the Internet that Tylenol is more dangerous than meth, cocaine, or fentanyl.

Wait, no I didn't. That's absurd. Tylenol can cause long term health issues if used in excess (or death, for extreme overdoses), but most illegal drugs are illegal because they can cause immediate death even at normal usage amounts.

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

#164

Post by [deleted] »

8note wrote: post #23

as an argument for sports betting as a market, i remember when the wrong team won the world series, and hadnt setup their correct merch and so on for online sales, and it was a disaster trying to get all the right stuff together to minimize fraud and abuse. if an online sales provider could hedge against the risk of that win, the gamble would help pay for all the chaos as a result

[deleted]

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

#165

Post by jareklupinski »

combobyte wrote: post #17
jareklupinski wrote: post #11

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

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.

after the first fifty years? :)

biological organisms develop addiction much faster than political processes

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

#166

Post by AngryData »

gamblor956 wrote: post #163
inigyou wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Today I learned on the Internet that Tylenol is more dangerous than meth, cocaine, or fentanyl. Wait, no I didn't. That's absurd. Tylenol can cause long term health issues if used in excess (or death, for extreme overdoses), but most illegal drugs are illegal because they can cause immediate death even at normal usage amounts.

You would have had a better point if you didn't include cocaine which is only really dangerous for people with severe heart problems or by using it in combination with depressive drugs that it temporarily suppresses.

If cocaine was really a problem then C-suites and politicians would be regularly dieing.

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

#167

Post by consensus1 »

xoa wrote: post #28
consensus1 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was joking (mostly). The stock market absolutely is positive sum, but at the same time things like 2x levered short VIX ETF's exist...

I mean sure, people can find ways to use all sorts of events and activities for gambling, but that doesn't mean the events/activities themselves are. And the sentiment you expressed joking has gotten repeated with (afaict) total seriousness in these threads with some regularity (insurance is another one that people incorrectly bring up trying to defend gambling). So I think it's pretty important to differentiate betw…

Yeah, I hear you. The "stock market is rigged, insurance is a scam" vibe is strong here. HN has really turned into a sounding board for bitter people who think the whole world is out to get them.

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

#168

Post by inigyou »

gamblor956 wrote: post #163
inigyou wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Today I learned on the Internet that Tylenol is more dangerous than meth, cocaine, or fentanyl. Wait, no I didn't. That's absurd. Tylenol can cause long term health issues if used in excess (or death, for extreme overdoses), but most illegal drugs are illegal because they can cause immediate death even at normal usage amounts.

Meth used to be available over the counter in pharmacies in the US.

No drug I'm aware of causes immediate death in normal usage, except perhaps those used for lethal injection. Would you like to elaborate on that? Tylenol, on the other hand, causes an unpreventable (no antidote) slow drawn out death over about a week, where your body will be slowly decaying and you have time to say goodbye to all your loved ones, if you take a few times the normal dose by mistake

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

#169

Post by jareklupinski »

tofuahdude wrote: post #54
jareklupinski wrote: post #11

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

Aren't worth what? The tax? Or the vice being legal in the first place?

aren't worth the tax: no matter how high you set the tax, it won't offset the amount you have to spend on rehabilitating the effects of the vice

legality itself never stopped a vice from being indulged :) it's the cost / benefit that brings back repeat customers and encourages addictive behaviors

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

#170

Post by dmix »

jfengel wrote: post #154
dmix wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s the history of separation of powers, the judiciary is the final check in the loop. 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. That’s not to say states have lost power, their reach has also grown exponentially far outpacing even the federal in terms of number of workers and wr…

I think it does largely explain it. Congress can't do even necessary things. On the rare occasions they can, they create an executive branch agency and give it the power to write regulations. They know that Congress is neither qualified nor capable of handling it. Then when the executive takes more power they have little ability to opposite it. Especially since there is a significant Congressional delegation who beli…

That’s a great point.

Congress largely just generates new federal agencies, where there is now about 400+, and then mixing responsibilities for running them. Combine that the executive order mandate scheme and appointment/independence thing being vaguely defined. So it basically continuously empowers the executive each generation while Congress is scared to respond.

Which is other half in how the two parties perfected building loyalty schemes, where the president or leading opposition candidate can kill off a congressional candidate with their influence and easily stack congress with their people.

I’d personally ban a sitting president or ex president from getting involved in Congress or senate run. Also maybe a similar scheme for the Supreme Court.

Post reply on HN