Live data from Hacker News

Addiction Markets

thebignewsletter.com

231–240 of 479 posts

Re: Addiction Markets

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but banning them is the right thing to do. Why would you have a state agency review gambling ads?

I imagine outright banning would create a fairly large grey market. The objective should be harm reduction, as eradication would be basically impossible.

The discussion is about banning the advertising of gambling, not gambling itself.

There won't be a large grey market for advertisements.

Re: Addiction Markets

#232

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.

Nah the sweet spot is to make the gambling companies pay for the treatment and recovery of the people addicted to their products, up to whatever amount they gave the gambling company.

Re: Addiction Markets

#233

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.

Norway does a great job of this with the government-owned alcohol monopoly. The stores are always just a little bit out of the way, with slightly inconvenient hours. You can still get a beer if you want, but it takes a little bit of doing.

Re: Addiction Markets

#234
Personal choice is when it just exists, like Las Vegas in Nevada.

If you really really want to gamble then go, travel to Nevada and do it.

The problem is sticking their filthy ads and purchased propagandists into the faces of vulnerable people and society at large.

Preying on victims over the phone, soc. media ads, bought manipulators so called influencers with no morale.

Re: Addiction Markets

#235
post #95
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 feel like it only became rampant in recent years. As a 90s kid no one cared about the card packs. We all assumed they'd be junk cards and a waste of $7 or whatever. No, the move for card people back then was to wait for the card show and just buy the cards you actually want from a card dealer. The thing is now people are marketing the pack opening. You have social media accounts of them pulling cards from packs and…

Consider who your peers were then. Were they likely to get addicted? I know my circle was elite--doing the probability calculations, circulating card lists on Usenet, and joking that gambling was taxes on stupid people.

Now as an adult, I see tweens with addictions to multiple things. Watch them beg to buy a Pokemon pack, open it, and lose interest. It's completely the dopamine expectation. And it takes years in recovery. But I think I was ignorant and unaware in the 90s of what other people were addicted to.

Re: Addiction Markets

#236
post #137
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't imagine kids even liked it then. Again most of those packs were junk cards. Like total crap cards. Oh gee a rattata and some energy cards. All you wanted was Ash's squad from the shows.

The kids I knew who played these kinds of card games all loved buying booster packs, but they weren’t paying for these packs themselves and most grew out of playing by the time they reached high school. I can see it not being as fun for adult players who understand the probability metagame being played, but I think one of the reasons these games had so much financial success in the first place was that they identifie…

I loved buying booster packs and trying to make decks from the janky cards in them, until people taking it all Very Seriously came along.

Re: Addiction Markets

#237
It's weird how we're so strict on consenting adults gambling, but when underage children gamble on Counter Strike, we as a society deem it totally fine, acceptable, and normal.

I don't get it. Somehow, them being underage makes it better and not worse??

Re: Addiction Markets

#238
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?

They are legally required to include that. They don't actually care. Casinos and gambling institutions absolutely and purposely optimize to attract and capture more problem gamblers. The evolution of digital slots is a great example of this. An average person could have a little fun with an old fashioned basic slot machine, but the modern ones are so aggressively optimized to trigger addiction and keep addicts going…

There's a concept--"making more fun for people who aren't vulnerable to addiction isn't something they do".

I've thought of this often, seeing the state of mobile games. Not fun--they barely have strategy, little choice, and so much copy-cat gambling-machine mechanics.

Re: Addiction Markets

#239
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Options markets help farmers and miners decide how much to invest in future production. Ditto the consumer of a commodity faced with an investment decision where the success of the investment depends on continued access to the commodity.

Are you thinking of the futures market? That's different than options

They are roughly the same thing packaged differently. Both can be used to lock-in the price at a certain premium.

Re: Addiction Markets

#240
post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because stock trading isn't zero sum.

Yes, it is negative sum after transaction costs and taxes.

No, it's not. Person A buys stock 1, stock one goes from $10 to $15. Person A makes $5. Person B buys it at $15 and then it pays a $1 dividend, person B makes $1. It's not zero sum, everyone can win.
Post reply on HN