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

Addiction Markets

thebignewsletter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 479 posts

Re: Addiction Markets

#151

Post by [deleted] »

LPisGood wrote: post #150
snuxoll wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is this: the house always wins. Casinos, online sports books, the lottery, all of it is designed such that all but quite literally a lucky few will lose money. If you understand this properly, then, yes, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it being a form of entertainment , but that means you need to go in thinking about cost per hour instead of any notion of leaving with more than you began with. This…

The house does not always win in online sports books. I personally know some quant minded people that have been banned or backed off from a dozen or more online sports books because they are crushed by any nontrivial understanding of price/probability and arbitrage. They do make a lot of money from people who bet for fun or based on their perceived knowledge of the particular sport.

[deleted]

Re: Addiction Markets

#152

Post by empath75 »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #60
savanaly wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the only “responsible” choice is not to gamble online I don't gamble at all in any form, but I still firmly disagree. Some people enjoy gambling in a way that never hurts them-- I've known countless friends and coworkers who talk about doing a bit of it in Vegas or what have you. You're saying every last one is a degenerate gambler somehow concealing it totally from me? They know they're not going net positive on t…

These services make a relatively smaller piece of their profit from "responsible" people with a lot of self-control. In many cases, the business is probably not viable without problem gamblers. Problem gamblers account for anywhere from 51% of revenue for sports betting apps, to 90% in the case of casinos [1,2] and the numbers seem to be getting worse. [1] https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DMHAS/Publications/2023-CT-FIN.…

Those people will still gamble if gambling is illegal. Gambling did not start in the 1970s and the primary motivation for making it legal wasn’t revenue it was shutting down revenue streams for organized crime.

Re: Addiction Markets

#153

Post by anal_reactor »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #71

On a somewhat related note, there seems to be a huge interest in vice policing on social media. Gambling, sex, drugs, these are some of humanity's oldest vices. Why has it become so popular on social media to highlight these, along with a narrative of social or cultural decline?

1. People who have problems themselves love seeing others have more serious problems. Sex addicts think "at least I'm not a gambling addict". Gambling addicts think "at least I'm not a drug addict".

2. Fear is the emotion that's easiest to trigger because before modernity, life was indeed quite dangerous. You can make shitload of money by making people feel scared.

3. It is true that for many people, the society got worse, and they want to know why.

Re: Addiction Markets

#154

Post by empath75 »

snuxoll wrote: post #58
savanaly wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the only “responsible” choice is not to gamble online I don't gamble at all in any form, but I still firmly disagree. Some people enjoy gambling in a way that never hurts them-- I've known countless friends and coworkers who talk about doing a bit of it in Vegas or what have you. You're saying every last one is a degenerate gambler somehow concealing it totally from me? They know they're not going net positive on t…

The problem is this: the house always wins. Casinos, online sports books, the lottery, all of it is designed such that all but quite literally a lucky few will lose money. If you understand this properly, then, yes, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it being a form of entertainment , but that means you need to go in thinking about cost per hour instead of any notion of leaving with more than you began with. This…

Gambling online would be a lot less destructive if you had to buy a monthly subscription in advance and when you lose that money you are just done.

Re: Addiction Markets

#155

Post by empath75 »

LPisGood wrote: post #150
snuxoll wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is this: the house always wins. Casinos, online sports books, the lottery, all of it is designed such that all but quite literally a lucky few will lose money. If you understand this properly, then, yes, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it being a form of entertainment , but that means you need to go in thinking about cost per hour instead of any notion of leaving with more than you began with. This…

The house does not always win in online sports books. I personally know some quant minded people that have been banned or backed off from a dozen or more online sports books because they are crushed by any nontrivial understanding of price/probability and arbitrage. They do make a lot of money from people who bet for fun or based on their perceived knowledge of the particular sport.

You just explainer why the house always wins. If they don’t, they will stop taking your bets.

Re: Addiction Markets

#156

Post by jerednel »

alphazard wrote: post #94
sakopov wrote: post #88

> Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong rattled off crypto buzzwords at the end of the Q3 call, resolving $84K in prediction market bets to "yes." https://x.com/Cointelegraph/status/1984161085780263322

Polymarket is not even close to the same thing. Sports betting allows a blessed few corporations to run rigged markets and intentionally prevent price discovery by keeping the smart money out. Polymarket uses open orderbooks where you match against someone else who wants the other side of the trade just like the stock market. Prices are set by the market, as they should be.

It’s not that hard to look at lines at Pinnacle and Circa and make estimates about the fair value of a wager. Open accounts at every book and line shop and maximize expected value.

Also you are ignoring platforms like Novig which are like the polymarket for sports betting.

Re: Addiction Markets

#157

Post by fud101 »

Hasz wrote: post #24
toomuchtodo wrote: post #2

Related: Coffeezilla: Exposing the Gambling Epidemic - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45773049 - October 2025

Great video. The convergence between traditional stock market finance and casino gambling is going to seriously scar a generation.

I still can't take him seriously, he's a long time crypto grifter exposing grifting, why should we enable him? I don't follow him very closely but he always positioned himself as a pick me saavy crypto investor not like the others (who were into shitcoins).

Re: Addiction Markets

#159

Post by rufus_foreman »

shipman05 wrote: post #142

It feels like banning advertising for gambling would be a sweet spot between harm reduction and maintaining individual liberty. Sports gambling ads have ruined sports media. State lottery ads are even worse. The government should not spend money to encourage its own citizens to partake in harmful activities.

>> It feels like banning advertising for gambling would be a sweet spot between harm reduction and maintaining individual liberty

No.

If you want restrictions on gambling, on advertising it, on participating in it, on making money from it, you want to restrict individual liberty.

I want to restrict individual liberty, I have voted against gambling when it has come up for a vote in my state over and over.

You want to appear to be the type of person who wants to maintain individual liberty, but you in fact are not. You want to restrict individual liberty in the area of gambling.

I would also like to appear to be the type of person who wants to maintain individual liberty, and I will vote against gambling every single time it comes up.

No gambling.

Re: Addiction Markets

#160

Post by YurgenJurgensen »

savanaly wrote: post #41
gcanyon wrote: post #16

This 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?

> the only “responsible” choice is not to gamble online I don't gamble at all in any form, but I still firmly disagree. Some people enjoy gambling in a way that never hurts them-- I've known countless friends and coworkers who talk about doing a bit of it in Vegas or what have you. You're saying every last one is a degenerate gambler somehow concealing it totally from me? They know they're not going net positive on t…

‘Responsible’ gambling is still morally irresponsible. People are walking adverts for their hobbies whether they like it or not, so people who engage with gambling will be indirectly encouraging other people to take up the hobby, many of which will ruin their lives. (Also some fraction of their losses will fund advertising that will similarly attract problem gamblers.) The low stakes recreational gamblers keep the system looking friendly and approachable. This is also almost certainly by design.
Post reply on HN