Live data from Hacker News

Americans increasingly see legal sports betting as a bad thing for society

pewresearch.org

311–320 of 525 posts

Re: Americans increasingly see legal sports betting as a bad thing for society

#311

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. I think this passes the buck. It's not the addictive apps and ads, it's society! Don't regulate us!

It is possible to see both systemic and individual concerns. Binary thinking for blame or credit rarely makes sense in complex systems.

Re: Americans increasingly see legal sports betting as a bad thing for society

#312
post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m genuinely curious to what extent the hardships younger people face economically are related to wasting huge amounts of time on screens. The average Gen Z person spends nine hours per day on screens. The average 18-24 year old American spends more than three hours per day just on social media. I recognize all the various societal and structural factors that disadvantage younger people. At the same time, people hav…

We both lived through an era where there was a sense of community, even online, I would also spend boatloads of time learning how to program in my youth some 20+ years ago but that was around the same IRC channels, the same forums, with people who were in those spaces for years. I would bond with them through this shared hobby, make acquaintances, even friends, people who you could recognise even if it was just a nic…

> Everything they experience online is through mass platforms where everyone is basically anonymous even though it became much more common to share your real name.

And sadly even this diminished engagement you are talking about is somewhat optimistic in that it assumes the people they are interacting with on mass platforms are even real people, which is increasingly not the case.

Re: Americans increasingly see legal sports betting as a bad thing for society

#314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do I have a point or is this just victim blaming? A little bit of column A, a little bit of column B so the nihilism is real and warranted, if they don't inherit at least a downpayment for a house from you while you are still alive, the jobs available - even for highly pedigreed people - don't provide the income for the downpayment, for the most part. they would need arbitrage with high paying work in a very low co…

I appreciate the thoughtful reply. I guess one theory, then, of excessive screen time is nihilistic too: if you can’t get ahead, why not spend your time absorbed in an alternate reality, perhaps including alternate realities where you can get ahead, like GTA. That said, what I see in young people around me (because of my age, there’s quite a few) is a lot of addiction, not nihilism. These are kids with opportunities…

> if you can’t get ahead, why not spend your time absorbed in an alternate reality, perhaps including alternate realities where you can get ahead, like GTA ... That said, what I see in young people around me (because of my age, there’s quite a few) is a lot of addiction, not nihilism.

I think we both conclude that its not a conscious choice, screens are addictive.

I also think many people levying this scrutiny are just as addicted.

I took a community college class a few years back and for the first few sessions I was fidgeting, until I course corrected because I knew that was abnormal for me from the last time I was in formal education. My ability to course correct made me think about how younger generations may be at a disadvantage because they don't know any other way to operate.

> The underlying question behind my post is essentially, does Cal Newport’s theory of success - so good they can’t ignore you - hold? And what happens to society when a generation is sucked into what they themselves literally refer to as “brain rot”?

I think it holds, income and work look different to many people. A steady high paying job is still optimal for a broad population, but being influential on social media or making a roblox game, all of which is built in the ecosystem they spend time on, seems practical too.

Re: Americans increasingly see legal sports betting as a bad thing for society

#315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stocks have positive expected returns: the risk premium. Sports bets have negative expected returns in aggregate and if you are good enough to only bet the ones you can spot with positive expected returns they ban you from the platform.

Stocks do not have positive expected return. The return on the average stock is 0% in the US which is negative after fees (this is a common misconception, market returns are positive only because large companies get larger and this is contextual, when this isn't true then even the market will lose money). This is to say nothing of 0DTE options. There is a risk premium but this premium can be positive or negative. It…

No one should be buying 0DTE options, it’s idiotic.

You should only use options as a way to make some extra money for actions you might have taken anyway, such as buying/selling a stock at a certain price.

Re: Americans increasingly see legal sports betting as a bad thing for society

#316
post #247
post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> no profit for the organizer 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.

We're clearly having different views on society. Yours seems through a strict financial lens, but correct me if I'm wrong.

> potentially huge if you do.

No, it isn't. You've just incurred a (probably larger) loss, elsewhere. There's no pay-off. Insurance makes large losses bearable for the individual and society. That's unlike gambling.

Re: Americans increasingly see legal sports betting as a bad thing for society

#317

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 think we have to caveat that we're all speculating here. I would assume there are studies of habitual gamblers, but since it was only nationally legalized a few years ago, there likely isn't a lot of recent research on regular people who weren't specifically seeking it out in the past.

But just to say, having been a sports fan my entire life, as well as growing up with a grandmother that lived in Vegas, I bet a tiny bit myself but knew quite a few who bet a lot more, and it wasn't really like you're saying. Nobody expected to get rich. Hitting it big enough to make a meaningful impact on lifetime wealth requires parlays that are statistically just as unlikely as the actual lottery, at which point you may as well simply play the lottery, which was already available.

Instead, sports bettors seemed to come in a few varieties. One is the analytically minded fans who just wanted to see if they could make some amount of predictable extra income. I fell into that category back in college and grad school and did consistently earn money, but a very small amount, in the four figures a year, less than you'd get working part-time at McDonald's. Another is the casual fan who just finds the games more entertaining if they have a personal stake. These are the kinds of people who participate in office super bowl pools and it's pretty innocuous.

The problems start to happen when people from either of these groups has some kind of unforeseen financial problem, no other way to get money quickly, and figures they'll try something like throwing a bunch of money into a boxing match they think they can predict. Not get rich levels, but something like betting enough to hit a 50 grand payoff. It becomes a problem because one of two things happens. You succeed, but then you can't acknowledge the role of sheer luck, think you're smarter than you really are and can predict the future, and you keep doing it. Otherwise, you lose, but can't let it go and chase your losses to try and recoup them. Either way, you end up losing. The only way to win is get very lucky and then have the discipline to immediately quit, which almost no one has.

But realistically, people have bet on sports as long as sports have existed, in every civilization we have a record of. It's hard to say it's reflective of any kind of specific social condition. It's a natural thing to do. Most bets are small and effectively just people throwing away money on a pointless purchase no more harmful than buying junk on Amazon they don't really need and will never use. It's becoming a problem because legalizing it gave the sports leagues and broadcasters themselves a financial incentive to market it. Every game and every analysis now includes ads and the pundits themselves giving their picks, making it appear to be an important part of being a fan than everyone should do. They took something that could have mostly been harmless and industrialized it. A whole lot of people who easily get addicted to anything addictive are now specifically getting addicted to this, simply because they can. It's problematic in exactly the same way alcohol sales are. The marketing industrial complex is making it seem like you're not a full human if you're not doing it, but if everyone is doing it, then the addicts are going to be doing it, too. At a small enough scale, it's still destroying a few lives, but it's like hoarding, rare and most people vaguely know it's out there somewhere but never think about it. If the most popular entertainers in the world, emblems of civic pride and identity, started running ads and on-air segments telling you that you should hoard and exactly how to do it, then we'd have a much larger scale problem.

The problem we have as a country, though, is the court logic legalizing it couldn't have realistically been different. There is no sane way to justify having it be legal in Nevada but nowhere else. It should be legal nowhere, but then you're banning Las Vegas, and even if that's the right thing to do, we don't have a ton of precedent for doing that much harm to corporate bottom lines. It took 50 years of incontrovertible evidence to do it to tobacco. It'll probably happen eventually, but in the same way. We won't outright ban betting, but it will be heavily marketed against, socially stigmatized, and banned from advertising.

Re: Americans increasingly see legal sports betting as a bad thing for society

#318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I asked because I noticed this strange cluster (for me) of people which want to ban some things like gambling or social media algorithms because they are exploitative and addictive, but who also want to legalize drugs. I had a feeling you might be in it. Stranger, some of them want to ban/make it harder to distribute drugs "legally" through doctors (OxyContin, Sackler family scandal) because doctors might be monetari…

I was reading this chain of responses. They are great. The two of you are very thoughtful in your world view. About your last paragraph: How do you feel about other OECD (highly developed) countries that do not allow personal gun ownership (except for hunting and sport shooting (clays, etc.)? Take Japan for example: Except for hunting and sport shooting, ownership of guns is not allowed. How do you feel about it?

If there are no guns around, and if the Police is competent, I would be against allowing guns.

But the police must do it's job. Take Sweden, criminality is now rampant there, criminals are using grenades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grenade_attacks_in_Swe...

Re: Americans increasingly see legal sports betting as a bad thing for society

#319
I'm not sure why we're talking about sports betting as if the "sports" part is relevant. The gambling industry in general is the business of selling hope to hopeless people. All of it is bad, and as long as we have the states themselves selling hundreds of millions of dollars of lottery tickets primarily to those living in poverty, this is never going to go away. It should not be legal to make money off of other people's suffering, which is exactly what this is.

Re: Americans increasingly see legal sports betting as a bad thing for society

#320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many ways to use the financial markets that are not gambling. Buying an index fund or Coca-Cola isn’t gambling; it is not even very risky. Nor are individual stocks gambling, as you can get a reasonable idea of what a company’s price ought to be and how it is likely to perform in the future, at least for well-established companies. It’s also harder to get into debt, as long as you don’t short, because you c…

Buying a stock or mutual fund is the very definition of gambling: placing a monetary bet on an unknown future event. Just because this activity has historically had a +EV, doesn't make it any less gambling.

By this definition prime loans are also gambling. When you bet on something risky then you are gambling. When you bet on something not risky you are not gambling. Also consider that not investing will generally lose money over time due to things like inflation. If we define the goal to be holding as much value as we can, holding dollars is more risky than investing in many stocks (or bonds, which also have a risk of defaulting). A better definition of gambling is something like "taking unnecessary and unproductive risks."
Post reply on HN