Live data from Hacker News

Bombarding gamblers with offers greatly increases betting and gambling harm

bristol.ac.uk

141–150 of 151 posts

Re: Bombarding gamblers with offers greatly increases betting and gambling harm

#141
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also there’s a bit of a tragedy of the commons. If one entity is scrupulous that doesn’t mean another will. Obviously if they had any morals they’d see the bright line.

I wonder how incentives could be better aligned. Had an interesting case study where a coworker liked to gamble - he was fairly responsible, kept to his budget and treated it like an expensive hobby he enjoyed- but at the same time, he had someone else handle his retirement investments, which is an unpredictable payoff market where you come out ahead on average. I asked a couple times why he didn't replace gambling w…

> I asked a couple times why he didn't replace gambling with investing and never got a good answer

There's a simple answer, which is that gambling is fun, and investing is not fun (my guess.) Your coworker is a pleasure seeker, like everyone is to some degree.

Re: Bombarding gamblers with offers greatly increases betting and gambling harm

#142

why can't we have a law that just caps your gambling losses? Everyone gets a federally issued gambling license tied to your ID, if you lose more than X amount the casino is no longer legally allowed to let you play. Casual gamblers can still enjoy, problem gamblers get cut off; just like with alcohol at the bar.

Sounds like a worthwhile use of the taxpayer's dollar.

Re: Bombarding gamblers with offers greatly increases betting and gambling harm

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone cannot stop gambling, then what moral responsibility do gambling organizations have when giving them offers?

Gambling is basically a scam (house always wins) and thus should not be a legal transaction you can make. What moral responsibility do we have to allow companies to scam people?

You're asking the wrong question. Why should the government intervene in a transaction between knowledgeable consenting parties?

Re: Bombarding gamblers with offers greatly increases betting and gambling harm

#144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone cannot stop gambling, then what moral responsibility do gambling organizations have when giving them offers?

new policy proposal: internment camps for libertarians

You won't take me alive! :P

Re: Bombarding gamblers with offers greatly increases betting and gambling harm

#145
post #27

If it's so bad for gamblers, why don't they stop? If gambling orgs do something that you know causes harm, why isn't the a legal sense of responsibility?

“Stop being poor.”

Downvoting privileges can't come soon enough.

Re: Bombarding gamblers with offers greatly increases betting and gambling harm

#146

why can't we have a law that just caps your gambling losses? Everyone gets a federally issued gambling license tied to your ID, if you lose more than X amount the casino is no longer legally allowed to let you play. Casual gamblers can still enjoy, problem gamblers get cut off; just like with alcohol at the bar.

Sounds like a worthwhile use of the taxpayer's dollar.

you can even make gamblers pay to apply for the license

Re: Bombarding gamblers with offers greatly increases betting and gambling harm

#147

I've always found the marketing around gambling (and most things really) completely disgusting. As a society I think we're far too tolerant of these things. A lot of the ads basically go along the lines of: 'you could win big and have a great time, awesome! (disclaimer: will probably ruin your life)'. It should be like it is with smoking - photos of lung cancer patients on the package. People will still do it of cour…

At this point I question whether they should even be allowed to advertise.

It shouldn't even be allowed to exist, there are literally zero positive outcomes for anyone. On aggregate, people just lose money. And no, it's not entertainment.

And for the operator, they make money by... doing nothing? That's a huge red flag. Usually if that's the case, then the business is not legitimate.

Re: Bombarding gamblers with offers greatly increases betting and gambling harm

#148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gambling is basically a scam (house always wins) and thus should not be a legal transaction you can make. What moral responsibility do we have to allow companies to scam people?

You're asking the wrong question. Why should the government intervene in a transaction between knowledgeable consenting parties?

Because they're not knowledgeable or consenting. You don't know your odds, and the house makes sure of it. And if you're addicted, you don't really consent.

Exhibit A: Tobacco. Prior to regulation, it was advertised widely and thought to be not that bad.

Once we regulated knowledge and consent, use plummeted.

For knowledge, we display pictures on the pack and carton of people in agony dying of lung cancer. We tell them the odds. For consent, we mitigate by saying "WARNING: nicotine is an addictive chemical. Nicotine can be more addictive than Heroine".

The fallacy here is that markets are naturally free and government intervention makes markets less free. That's rarely the case. Often, intervention makes the market more free.

Re: Bombarding gamblers with offers greatly increases betting and gambling harm

#150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a worthwhile use of the taxpayer's dollar.

you can even make gamblers pay to apply for the license

I was being sarcastic. Bitterly, sourly, saltily sarcastic.
Post reply on HN