241–250 of 525 posts
[flagged]
When commenting, I suggest you read the article first. It would be extremely, extremely clear to you what people mean in this thread when they say "gambling."
The legalization and popularity of gambling is more than just an immoral activity that has negative societal effects. It’s reflective of people losing hope in the system’s ability to make their lives better. Gambling thrives in contexts where a ladder to success doesn’t exist or is perceived as not existing. If hard work or time doesn’t make your life better, then fate is just chance, and you might as well throw your…
I believe that there's a place for a time-efficient, minimal human approval, risk-reward system for a society in which jobs have been gatekept to ever-higher requirements and are even harder to sustain due to pressures of the people gatekeeping you out and around you once you've gotten in (ie. the bureaucracies of your co-workers and your boss's temper tantrums).
If you've ever talked to creative-passion professionals(ie. media-content, artists), clients don't really respect them and abuse their passion, plus the people around them put a lot of pressure on them. In addition, polishing their work takes up a lot of time. So it's highly probable that they would be stuck in this loop if they didn't do something.
You could say 'oh, they can upskill themselves' or whatever. However that carries significant risk and still binds the individual to people's approvals and their hidden/overboard requirements. All the while, time and mental health is being sapped from them. I knew a programmer in gamedev who pivoted to robotics. It was all math heavy stuff and consumed him and his mental health to the point of his relationships suffering.
Point is skills-pivoting is hard to execute, and gets riskier by the day (think ai and jobs). However, say there's a system that is easy to execute, but the rewards are variant. But if that individual is able to figure out a plan to generate positive expectancy, that's a great alternative to the system of 'get a job and another job and hope you tick the requirements'. It's like a business in which you fail until you don't.
Of course, the keyword is being able to turn whatever you're doing into *positive expectancy*. Like a business with a new offering/venture, everything new looks like a gamble because you don't know the information, the theories and the outcome. Do you want really want to kill off these new businesses?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://oldcoinbad.com/p/long-degeneracy In the author’s words, long degeneracy represents “a belief that the world will only get more degenerate, financialized, speculative, lonely, tribal and weird”. The most concise and holistic explanation of this trend is: "As real returns compress, risk increases to compensate".
I dislike the author's framing of this in terms of right-wing meme culture, but almost all of the analysis is nevertheless correct. An orthodox Marxist could make essentially the same argument using different terminology - except about the inevitability of the trend continuing forever.
Which is important because it yields completely different behavior from the believer...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> has the possibility of making your rich the core issue is that such possibility does not exist. if you are successful gambler to the point where you are on the path to riches you will be banned from all platforms faster than Jets are mathematically eliminated from the playoffs
In sports betting contexts, you're often just betting against other players, I believe. If they're anything like prediction markets, the exchange isn't going to care how successful you are, as long as you're betting.
These things are so unfathomably antisocial that I earnestly believe every single politician who advances them should be (journalistically) investigated as extensively as is legally possible.
Gambling and betting should be 1v1 , as soon as you introduce a pool or an aggregator the wise advice is to stay away if such pool or aggregator has more than say a certain amount of bettors (100k-1M), because you become the new kid on the block and the new kid on the block gets skinned.
Thing is the implication of all the above is that we should stay away from every stock market and that would be quite right considering how it produces such loopsided outcomes, not unlike the gambling platforms or even worse
The legalization and popularity of gambling is more than just an immoral activity that has negative societal effects. It’s reflective of people losing hope in the system’s ability to make their lives better. Gambling thrives in contexts where a ladder to success doesn’t exist or is perceived as not existing. If hard work or time doesn’t make your life better, then fate is just chance, and you might as well throw your…
> > It’s reflective of people losing hope in the system’s ability to make their lives better On the contrary all epicenters of gambling are extremely rich areas populated by people who have mastered such art. The proximities of the stock exchanges of every country are basically the richest zip code in the country
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is hard to argue against because you haven't defined what you mean by strict rules, but here are some positive outcomes of gambling: - Insurance prevents financial catastrophe by aggregating risk, yet it is nothing more than wagering you'll get into trouble. - Market liquidity is provided by people willing to bet on price developments, which smoothes out fluctuations in availability. - Large infrastructu…
What I mean by strict rules is (but not limited to): no profit for the organizer, loss limit for everyone across all bets, etc. But I don't know what set of rules would qualify to make gambling neutral. - Infrastructure is better off paid by taxation. That's much fairer, and more predictable. - I don't see insurance as gambling. It has a chance element, but that's not enough to qualify something as gambling. You buy…
You’ve ruled out not just all gambling but all business. The examples the parent comment above you gave are all profit generating for the organizer.
Insurance in particular seems to be a clear societal win and is in fact gambling. You make a (relatively) small wager that pays out nothing if you don’t need it or potentially huge if you do.
[flagged]
"When commenting, I suggest being clear about what sort of gambling you mean. Confusion easily arises otherwise." When commenting, I suggest you read the article first. It would be extremely, extremely clear to you what people mean in this thread when they say "gambling."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Genies are tricky to get back in the bottle - especially when you can just as easily go to a company based in the Caymen Islands or wherever and spend that way. Phones allow you to gamble from anywhere on anything. You could ban advertising it during sports broadcasts, which would probably reduce things a fair bit, but that's likely to impact the "casual" gambler who I don't do sports, but occasionally I'm in a pub a…
Gambling has always been a part of football. You mentioned the football pools, is this not gambling? Horse racing, not going to mention that? Conflating fixed odds machines with sports gambling is deliberately disingenuous, it is like comparing a nice glass of water with super skunk weed. Sports gambling is known to have less harm because it is not possible to control many aspects of the experience, unlike with fixed…
> Gambling has always been a part of football. You mentioned the football pools, is this not gambling?
> In the 90s the typical sports gambling in the UK was old men putting the price of a pint on the pools or in a fruit machine, where you guessed which team would win. The winning limit on the fruit machines was about 5 pints worth