The battle to stop clever people betting • Hacker News Board

Re: The battle to stop clever people betting

#11

Post by ismailmaj » Sat, Dec 27, 2025, 1:10 PM UTC

dangus wrote: post #10

Havoc wrote: post #3

I'd venture that actually smart people don't go near this at all because they know telling yourself "I'm better than others and won't get addicted"...all to chase a couple bucks is the height of folly. Polymarket has me intrigued though. Especially stuff like their geopolitics section...as a measure of how good one's read of the world is. Still gambling in disguise though

I imagine there’s lots of money to be made on fools in polymarket, like “Will the US confirm that aliens exist in 2025?” That topic had over a 10% “yes” chance in January. Betting no on that is better taking out a CD.

Maybe an extremely inefficient way to do money laundering?

Re: The battle to stop clever people betting

#12

Post by ACCount37 » Sat, Dec 27, 2025, 1:11 PM UTC

Havoc wrote: post #3

I'd venture that actually smart people don't go near this at all because they know telling yourself "I'm better than others and won't get addicted"...all to chase a couple bucks is the height of folly. Polymarket has me intrigued though. Especially stuff like their geopolitics section...as a measure of how good one's read of the world is. Still gambling in disguise though

Polymarket's purpose was specifically to let the best of the best take the pot by predicting events with real world impact. So, ideally, it's "gambling" in the same way day trading is gambling.

Contrast that to normal "sports betting" - which aims to block skilled betters, and squeeze suckers for their cash.

Re: The battle to stop clever people betting

#13

Post by ACCount37 » Sat, Dec 27, 2025, 1:13 PM UTC

ancillary wrote: post #8

ACCount37 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is to part gamblers with their money. Sport betting was never anything more than that.

Yeah, on the spectrum of ways to make money, running a sports betting site is pretty bad. It's zero-sum (unlike, say, founding a company and getting rich from shares that were initially worthless), doesn't really incentivize discovery of any truly valuable info (if you find out a player is injured an hour before everyone else ... ok?), and seems to disproportionately hit people who are already not doing very well. Se…

The sum is negative, really.

If you take $1000 from a few gambling addicts? You spend your own time and effort doing that - while the negative impact of that loss on their livelihood is likely to be larger than positive impact of your gain on your livelihood.

It's why gambling is usually regulated so heavily. Some people must have thought that sports-flavored gambling is going to be different - or were financially incentivized to think so. Turns out it isn't.

Re: The battle to stop clever people betting

#14

Post by newsclues » Sat, Dec 27, 2025, 1:14 PM UTC

ismailmaj wrote: post #11

dangus wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine there’s lots of money to be made on fools in polymarket, like “Will the US confirm that aliens exist in 2025?” That topic had over a 10% “yes” chance in January. Betting no on that is better taking out a CD.

Maybe an extremely inefficient way to do money laundering?

No but it’s a perverse incentive for people in power

Re: The battle to stop clever people betting

#15

Post by begueradj » Sat, Dec 27, 2025, 1:17 PM UTC

Havoc wrote: post #3

I'd venture that actually smart people don't go near this at all because they know telling yourself "I'm better than others and won't get addicted"...all to chase a couple bucks is the height of folly. Polymarket has me intrigued though. Especially stuff like their geopolitics section...as a measure of how good one's read of the world is. Still gambling in disguise though

> I'd venture that actually smart people don't go near this at all because they know telling yourself "I'm better than others and won't get addicted"

Being addicted is not an intelligence criterion because every human is addicted to something -good or bad.

That's actually a basic principle of how we function cognitively.

- https://psychiatryofscottsdale.com/psychiatrists-honest-take...

- https://psychiatryofscottsdale.com/were-all-addicted-to-some...

Re: The battle to stop clever people betting

#16

Post by amenhotep » Sat, Dec 27, 2025, 1:17 PM UTC

dangus wrote: post #10

Havoc wrote: post #3

I'd venture that actually smart people don't go near this at all because they know telling yourself "I'm better than others and won't get addicted"...all to chase a couple bucks is the height of folly. Polymarket has me intrigued though. Especially stuff like their geopolitics section...as a measure of how good one's read of the world is. Still gambling in disguise though

I imagine there’s lots of money to be made on fools in polymarket, like “Will the US confirm that aliens exist in 2025?” That topic had over a 10% “yes” chance in January. Betting no on that is better taking out a CD.

I can't remember the exact figures, but apparently if you'd taken the "insane thing does not happen" option on every Trump related contract over the past years, you'd have made a very tidy profit.

Not because he doesn't do insane things, obviously, the market is just not at all good at pricing it.

Re: The battle to stop clever people betting

#17

Post by ChrisMarshallNY » Sat, Dec 27, 2025, 1:18 PM UTC

ACCount37 wrote: post #13

ancillary wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, on the spectrum of ways to make money, running a sports betting site is pretty bad. It's zero-sum (unlike, say, founding a company and getting rich from shares that were initially worthless), doesn't really incentivize discovery of any truly valuable info (if you find out a player is injured an hour before everyone else ... ok?), and seems to disproportionately hit people who are already not doing very well. Se…

The sum is negative, really. If you take $1000 from a few gambling addicts? You spend your own time and effort doing that - while the negative impact of that loss on their livelihood is likely to be larger than positive impact of your gain on your livelihood. It's why gambling is usually regulated so heavily. Some people must have thought that sports-flavored gambling is going to be different - or were financially in…

> while the negative impact of that loss on their livelihood is likely to be larger than positive impact of your gain on your livelihood.

What's your point? /s Negative things happening to other people is "0," as long as you are getting something from it. In some cases, it may actually be "good," if you don't like the people suffering negative consequences.

This is not a trait that only applies to gambling. Almost every corporation on Earth takes the same attitude.

That's why unregulated capitalism is very bad.

Re: The battle to stop clever people betting

#18

Post by bpt3 » Sat, Dec 27, 2025, 1:20 PM UTC

mr_mitm wrote: post #9

bpt3 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smart people who are "gambling" for anything other than fun only would participate when they have an edge. There are many ways to obtain such an edge, and the casinos are highly motivated to prevent that from happening.

Not on polymarket or kalshi. They welcome what would be insider trading on the stock market.

Because they aren't (yet) casinos. Their current business model is much more like a stock exchange, but without the regulation as you point out.

Re: The battle to stop clever people betting

#19

Post by skippyboxedhero » Sat, Dec 27, 2025, 1:20 PM UTC

Havoc wrote: post #3

I'd venture that actually smart people don't go near this at all because they know telling yourself "I'm better than others and won't get addicted"...all to chase a couple bucks is the height of folly. Polymarket has me intrigued though. Especially stuff like their geopolitics section...as a measure of how good one's read of the world is. Still gambling in disguise though

The analogue that people have of betting is, for some reason, drugs. Addiction is an inherent property of taking drugs. Gambling is not like this in any way. It is not inherently addictive, 99% of people who gamble have no issue with it.

It isn't to chase a couple of bucks either. Billy Walter has made hundreds of millions. A recent court case leaked that Tony Bloom's syndicate was making £200m in profit per year. This activity helps make these markets more efficient.

There is nothing wrong with gambling. Fast food kills tens of thousands a year in the US, hundreds of billions spent on healthcare and life expectancy is still terrible because of obesity. Should we ban fast food? Why? Many other people don't have a problme. The idea of personal responsibility will always be completely abhorrent to some part of the population.

Re: The battle to stop clever people betting

#20

Post by potato3732842 » Sat, Dec 27, 2025, 1:21 PM UTC

ancillary wrote: post #8

ACCount37 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is to part gamblers with their money. Sport betting was never anything more than that.

Yeah, on the spectrum of ways to make money, running a sports betting site is pretty bad. It's zero-sum (unlike, say, founding a company and getting rich from shares that were initially worthless), doesn't really incentivize discovery of any truly valuable info (if you find out a player is injured an hour before everyone else ... ok?), and seems to disproportionately hit people who are already not doing very well. Se…

Zero sum is still a hell of a lot better than broken windows negative sum economic activity. A lot more stuff than you'd think falls into that category.

At least sports gambling is fairly "pure" in that regard.