481–490 of 517 posts
The headline is part of a widespread trend of the word "gambling" being used as synonymous with "betting". This new use isn't constructive, as it makes it difficult to talk about either precisely. Betting (risking something known for a payout which is uncertain), is ubiquitous in life, and really any game where the participants don't have perfect information. You are betting even if you don't realize it. You can't op…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you know of any studies that can accurately show the correlation between gambling and societal costs? On the surface the link makes sense to me and seems like it should be right, though I'm not sure how we could have tested it in a controlled way to really know the link exists.
This is such a weird question, just go outside and interact with humans and the evidence is everywhere
I have had family members addicted to drugs and/or alcohol and friends that have been addicted to gambling at various times. I've seen similar reactions anecdotally, but that isn't societal or scientific.
Prediction markets are not considered gambling for the same reason that stock markets aren't. There's no fixed odds or random chance. A skilled analyst can make consistent returns. Unlike stock markets, prediction markets also provide valuable data on important world events, such as elections. It's wisdom of the crowd with financial incentive.
With stock markets, at least in theory that money can be used to make a product to sell. They're not sum-zero games. Even if the company were to liquidate, you would be entitled to a share of actual assets after creditors were paid. This might seem foreign to some modern social media investors who YOLO with leverage all their money on meme stocks, but I would not be against that being reined in too.
Also, I really struggle to see anything coming out of prediction markets as valuable, especially not on a scale that would counteract their destructiveness. Like, polls are basically equally accurate, and there is zero benefit to anyone to know that there's a 76% chance that Trump will say the word "historic" during his speech Thursday.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you know of any studies that can accurately show the correlation between gambling and societal costs? On the surface the link makes sense to me and seems like it should be right, though I'm not sure how we could have tested it in a controlled way to really know the link exists.
In my country, lot of institutions running out-of-home-campaigns against gambling-addiction etc.; so yes, if public institutions are doing this then there is some evidence there
Creating a campaign doesn't prove in anyway the specific problems caused by gambling, especially at the societal level. It only shows that there is a group willing to fund programs against gambling addictions.
In no way am I questioning the intent or value of such programs, I hope it doesn't read that way. It just isn't necessarily relevant with regards to evidence.
Any moderately intelligent people should realize why insider trading, banning athletes from betting, etc measures have been put in place. One should understand why without those (and even with) those there's perverse incentives to act in destructive ways.
Yet people here would be trying to discuss philosophy, semantics and tell you this is good because an insider betting on an attack on Venezuela 4 hours before it happened increases the accuracy of the prediction and the information being public, ignoring the elephant in the room of having the perverse incentives to influence destructive events. Just think about it: there might be people with incentives of attacking Greenland because they bet on it. This is madness.
This is the worst degeneracy of gambling and dangerous incentives combined, and it's all for nothing else but money. Just look at whose behind these projects: bs crypto adjacent fintechs and gambling companies.
I know we live in numb times where people have thrown in the towel of any hope for a better world, but ffs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does this not boil down to the distinction being one's intent? I play poker occasionally, for example, and my primary goal is to win money not to take risk. Does that make it meet your definition of investing rather than gambling?
Well you're not committing the money to purchase an asset that will generate returns, so no, it's not "investing". It would be more accurate to say you're working, really: spending time and effort to earn money. Though the "work" here, assuming you're a skilled poker player sitting with lesser-skilled marks, is similar to a crypto bro performing a rug pull. You're enabling other participants to gamble in the hope of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What if someone (could be an individual or even an uncoordinated group) bets millions of dollars on you not doing X, in the hopes of you taking the opposite bet and doing X? If the market is efficient and aware of the bribery effect, others will bet that you will do X up to the point where the indirect bribe is equal to the cost of you doing X. If you have private knowledge that a bribe would be taken, you probably…
>If the market is efficient If my grandmother had wheels she'd be a bike
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you know of any studies that can accurately show the correlation between gambling and societal costs? On the surface the link makes sense to me and seems like it should be right, though I'm not sure how we could have tested it in a controlled way to really know the link exists.
Do you know of any studies which show any evidence at all that gambling has no costs?
My point absolutely wasn't that gambling has no known negative side effects. I was asking out of curiosity if there were studies someone could link to that actually tried to test it in a controlled way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The misappropriation theory of insider trading covers anyone who trades on material non public information sourced through a trusted relationship regardless of any fiduciary duty to the company. For example, if I tell my personal attorney a non public fact about the company I work at, and they trade on that information, they absolutely can be found guilty of insider trading despite having no relationship to the com…
This scenario seems very different because nobody gave the person any material non-public information at all, they simply deduced it from their experience participating in the trial. This feels similar to the question of "can a passenger on the Boeing jet with the door plug that blew out trade on that information" to which the answer appears to be yes. Misappropriation theory is the following: > The misappropriation…
And turns out I didn’t just stumble upon an unconsidered edge case because I got accepted into a drug trial and activated my galaxy brain:
Allan Norwich, The Clinical Trial Research Participant As An Inside Trader (J. Health Law, 2006).