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

211–220 of 479 posts

Re: Addiction Markets

#211

Post by noitpmeder »

exogeny wrote: post #184
alphazard wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is completely wrong. Who is the other peer in your transaction on Polymarket or Kalshi? Susquehanna. Jane Street. Two Sigma. It's not some rando two towns over. The PMs get paid to front run access to these market makers, who crush the retail bettor, er, predictor.

What do you mean here by front run? Don't most of these exchanges use normal limit books with visible resting orders available to trade against?

My understanding was that these shops were acting more as market makers, with the idea of guaranteeing liquidity and tight spreads in some number of markets.

If you think the listed bid-ask spread is mispriced you're more than welcome to move the market to whatever price you think is more appropriate.

Re: Addiction Markets

#212

Post by banannaise »

laterium wrote: post #199
musicale wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you lose (most people, most of the time), you don't have to pay tax on winnings because there aren't any. But gambling itself seems like sort of a regressive tax that preys upon those susceptible to gambling. Edit: at least with state lotteries the state gets most of the money so it is more like a tax; in the case of corporate sports betting the corporation takes the money and then pays a small corporate tax on…

Regressive taxes can be counterbalanced by redistributive policies. Sales taxes are regressive too for example and bring much much more revenue. The issue is sales taxes disincentivize consumption whereas gambling taxes disinventivize gambling.

> whereas gambling taxes disinventivize gambling.

Do they, though? The vig is 10%, very transparently shown in the odds, and paid immediately. It proves very little disincentive. The tax is paid annually and only if you win; for most people, it is 0%. Are we really going to argue that the tax is a serious factor in discouraging the behavior?

Re: Addiction Markets

#213

Post by laterium »

ux266478 wrote: post #144
skippyboxedhero wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do all of these occur with equal proportion in every country/culture? I am not sure what you are saying with homelessness...it isn't some massive baffling issue, someone who doesn't have a house, needs a house so build a house? School shootings...I don't understand how anyone can believe this is normal? The US has fairly obvious social problems, these essentially inhibit the functional resolution of most of these pro…

I'd rather we actually deal with the issues causing these things than sweep them under the rug and pretend like it's an actual solution. > Build houses. That doesn't solve homelessness, as we build many houses in America but they aren't being filled with the homeless. You need to apply social services in a complex systematic approach to provide housing that people can afford sustainably, and rehabilitate and integrat…

Yes, building houses actually solves homelessness. Housing prices are the best predictor of homelessness and of course increasing supply of a good decreases its price. Why does the law of supply and demand not apply to housing? Sometimes the solution is very very simple and not at all complicated. Just build more.

Re: Addiction Markets

#214

Post by noitpmeder »

omcnoe wrote: post #186
jerednel wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Betting platforms specifically work to identify customers who act in such ways and ban them from the platform. Developing accurate odds costs money, it's cheaper to just identify "advantage bettors" and ban them.

I'm not sure this applies to these prediction markets. Normally when gambling you're at a casino playing e.g. blackjack, where if you're winning more often than expected you're taking the house's money.

But this is more like playing poker, where overall the casino could care less if you're continuously crushing the other players, as long as people keep turning up to play and they keep getting a rake.

Re: Addiction Markets

#215

Post by banannaise »

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.

Alternatively: ban the instant-gratification bets. No bets on the outcomes of partial games: one pitch, one at-bat, one inning or quarter or half. If you want to get extreme with it, scorelines only (points, moneyline, over/under).

Re: Addiction Markets

#216

Post by laterium »

banannaise wrote: post #212
laterium wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regressive taxes can be counterbalanced by redistributive policies. Sales taxes are regressive too for example and bring much much more revenue. The issue is sales taxes disincentivize consumption whereas gambling taxes disinventivize gambling.

> whereas gambling taxes disinventivize gambling. Do they, though? The vig is 10%, very transparently shown in the odds, and paid immediately. It proves very little disincentive. The tax is paid annually and only if you win; for most people, it is 0%. Are we really going to argue that the tax is a serious factor in discouraging the behavior?

Taxing something almost always decreases usage. By how much depends on the rate and the elasticity of demand. Gambling demand is probably very inelastic, much like cigarettes and alcohol. (Your argument supports this too) If the rate is low too I can see your point about not having much effect. But it still has an effect. Excessive sin taxes can be the sign of a nanny state, but otherwise I agree with it. All taxes are bad anyways, some are just less worse.

Re: Addiction Markets

#217

Post by banannaise »

squigz wrote: post #36
nekusar wrote: post #30

People are also leaving out stuff like Pokemon, Yu Gi Oh, and Magic The Gathering. All of them also introduce rarities (arbitrary exclusiveness), hidden cards in a pack, and extreme gambling gamification. The only non-gambling MtG packs are the preconstructed commander decks. All 100 cards are published. But the packs and boxes? Pure gambling, especially for the chase rare cards. And before anyone asks, yes, my usern…

I think there's a massive difference between card packs - which have been as you describe for decades - and the recent boom in sports betting. Most people don't even know what MTG is, or that there's even a market for those cards. Everyone now knows that you can bet on any sport you want - and if some reports are to be believed, a large percentage of people are participating. Anyway, this is why I play MTG online - s…

> I think there's a massive difference between card packs - which have been as you describe for decades - and the recent boom in sports betting.

There is, until there isn't. MTG has been leaning drastically into tiered and ultra-premium products. Increasingly, it feels like Magic design and product is focused on extracting money from the whales at the price of hollowing out their playerbase.

It's difficult to draw a hard line between wholesome collecting and lootbox gambling, but it's hard not to notice that even the bastions of the collectible industry have been aggressively moving in the direction of the latter.

Re: Addiction Markets

#218

Post by mattmaroon »

Humorist2290 wrote: post #118

But if you want to outlaw this harmful activity [licensed gambling], you have to find a way to replace 6.4% of Maryland’s budget, which is slightly less than the entire amount the state brings in from corporate taxes. A fraction of the proceeds of losing bets from a fraction of Maryland's citizens contributes almost the same to state services -- EMS, education, road maintenance, etc -- than the total corporate taxes…

No to both. You probably understand it but it’s not that amazing. States don’t tax corporations much (it’s often fairly easy to move your company to the next state over if taxes are lower) the federal government does. They tax things like sales, homes, gambling and other vices, etc.

Re: Addiction Markets

#219

Post by [deleted] »

nimos wrote: post #195
steveBK123 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Options can be thought of as a form of insurance, so they have a useful purpose. In the simplest case you might hold a stock and a put to limit your downside for a set period of time.

The opposite is also true - you can use options to increase risk. I don't think insurance is a particularly good analogy in general.

[deleted]

Re: Addiction Markets

#220

Post by toasterlovin »

pstuart wrote: post #13
rybosworld wrote: post #10

I 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 t…

On the other hand, legit players can lobby for their interests, whereas criminal cartels generally can’t.
Post reply on HN