The problem isn't the 70M people who placed bets, its the ~25M with broken risk aversion. These are mostly men, and a very specific type of men. You can try to curtail their access to gambling but we're missing the underlying problem.
[deleted]
Addiction Markets
11–20 of 479 posts
Re: Addiction Markets
#12The problem isn't the 70M people who placed bets, its the ~25M with broken risk aversion. These are mostly men, and a very specific type of men. You can try to curtail their access to gambling but we're missing the underlying problem.
> These are mostly men, and a very specific type of men. You can try to curtail their access to gambling but we're missing the underlying problem.
You should address that too, but gambling is frankly a parasitic business meant to exploit such people, and we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good by avoiding the re-abolishment of such a pernicious industry.
Re: Addiction Markets
#13I don't think you can kill corporate run gambling - people will just use some offshore website instead. It might be something we should treat more like smoking. - Require a disclosure of the EV of each bet as the user is placing it. E.g.: Expected loss $5. - Ad targeting restrictions.
As someone who believes in legalizing all drugs and in general "personal freedoms", I'd add recreational drugs to this list.
The demand will always be there but there should be strong incentives to not incentivize use (e.g., the Purdue Pharma debacle). We're better served by having these markets addressed by legit players rather then criminal cartels.
I'm not sure what the best solution is, but unfettered promotion to consume is not the way.
Re: Addiction Markets
#14I don't think you can kill corporate run gambling - people will just use some offshore website instead. It might be something we should treat more like smoking. - Require a disclosure of the EV of each bet as the user is placing it. E.g.: Expected loss $5. - Ad targeting restrictions.
You can't kill murder; murder will always exist.
Surely, like murder, and other negative outcome behaviors, we can reduce the occurrences, right?
Re: Addiction Markets
#15I don't think you can kill corporate run gambling - people will just use some offshore website instead. It might be something we should treat more like smoking. - Require a disclosure of the EV of each bet as the user is placing it. E.g.: Expected loss $5. - Ad targeting restrictions.
Gamblers know the odds are stacked against them yet they end up stuck in a psychological prison within their own brain that they can't escape from even if they realize what they do is harmful.
Maybe a better law: check id, you are not allowed to take from any gambler more than 10 bets a year and no bet can be over 1k.
For big gamblers, we can have "qualified gamblers" rules like we do for qualified investors.
Funny how we don't let average people invest in some stuff but we let them gamble.
For offshore gambling pursue them aggressively if they serve US clients.
Re: Addiction Markets
#16This line from the ads always strikes me as darkly ironic:
> if you need help making responsible choices, call…
Like, the only “responsible” choice is not to gamble online. What do they even think we’re supposed to take away from that line of the commercial?
Re: Addiction Markets
#17I don't think you can kill corporate run gambling - people will just use some offshore website instead. It might be something we should treat more like smoking. - Require a disclosure of the EV of each bet as the user is placing it. E.g.: Expected loss $5. - Ad targeting restrictions.
You can't kill murder; murder will always exist. Surely, like murder, and other negative outcome behaviors, we can reduce the occurrences, right?
Yeah. Just like we do for smoking. I don't think I get your point. Are you agreeing with the prior commenter?
Re: Addiction Markets
#18I don't think you can kill corporate run gambling - people will just use some offshore website instead. It might be something we should treat more like smoking. - Require a disclosure of the EV of each bet as the user is placing it. E.g.: Expected loss $5. - Ad targeting restrictions.
> I don't think you can kill corporate run gambling - people will just use some offshore website instead.
You can block it at payment rails. The reasonable amount of avoidance of controls around gambling laws is not zero [1]. You're making it hard for all but the most determined, who are free to lose it all.
[1] https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra... (Control-F "This extends beyond payments") Broadly speaking, we are not "solving" gambling with these ideas; we are, as a society and sociopolitical economic system, pulling levers to arrive at the intersection of harm reduction and rights impairment. Some gambling, but only so much, for most but not all.
(work in finance, risk management, fintech/payments, etc)
Re: Addiction Markets
#19> A quarter of bettors can’t pay a bill because of their wagers, a third have gambling debts, more than half carry credit card debts, and a quarter of them are afraid they can’t control their gambling. No way. It's almost like these are addictive products being engineered to be as addictive as possible and deliberately punch people's brains in such a way to make them stay. That's so weird.
>> addictive products being engineered to be as addictive as possible and deliberately punch people's brains in such a way to make them stay The exact same argument could be used to make social media illegal.
You're saying it as if it's a bad thing.
Limiting social media to be only used for communication, and not algorithms is a good thing.
Re: Addiction Markets
#20I don't think you can kill corporate run gambling - people will just use some offshore website instead. It might be something we should treat more like smoking. - Require a disclosure of the EV of each bet as the user is placing it. E.g.: Expected loss $5. - Ad targeting restrictions.
This is a problem that literally had minimal societal consequences just a few years ago before the 2018 supreme court ruling[1]. I don't see why we shouldn't just try to move the laws back to how things were in 2017.
Source 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_v._National_Collegiate_...