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

51–60 of 479 posts

Re: Addiction Markets

#51

Post by mrguyorama »

rafale wrote: post #15
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.

Gamblers know the odds are stacked against them yet they end up stuck in a psychological prison within their own brain that they can't escape from even if they realize what they do is harmful. Maybe a better law: check id, you are not allowed to take from any gambler more than 10 bets a year and no bet can be over 1k. For big gamblers, we can have "qualified gamblers" rules like we do for qualified investors. Funny h…

Why go through all this effort just to enable an industry that does nothing but take a profit off of random chance?

Just fucking ban it.

Decriminalize low value bets between average people maybe but there's zero reason we need a gambling industry.

It is impossible for this industry to behave. Just kill it.

Your average Fent dealer isn't this predatory FFS

Re: Addiction Markets

#52

Post by dinkleberg »

Ylpertnodi wrote: post #50
dinkleberg wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Aside from actions that harm others (like theft, murder, etc.) the government shouldn’t be policing what individuals do. But it should absolutely protect the citizenry from malicious businesses whether it be praying on addictions like gambling and smoking, data privacy, polluting communities, and any other antisocial behaviors that harm the people.

Very contradictory statement.

How so?

Re: Addiction Markets

#53

Post by skippyboxedhero »

no_wizard wrote: post #44
rafale wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gamblers know the odds are stacked against them yet they end up stuck in a psychological prison within their own brain that they can't escape from even if they realize what they do is harmful. Maybe a better law: check id, you are not allowed to take from any gambler more than 10 bets a year and no bet can be over 1k. For big gamblers, we can have "qualified gamblers" rules like we do for qualified investors. Funny h…

>For big gamblers, we can have "qualified gamblers" rules like we do for qualified investors. This is actually a take I haven't seen elsewhere. Yes, we do protect investors at least marginally better (lots of people still get fleeced with little recourse, unfortunately) but conceptually, this is a very interesting idea. The fact that gambling exists on a loophole of being "for entertainment purposes only"[0] isn't a…

His take isn't new. It is deployed in part in the UK. Effectively, gambling companies adopt the role of the state conducting a full audit into your personal circumstances, income, assets, bank statement, utility bills to work out whether you can gamble.

I would hope that I don't need to explain why this isn't a good idea. But the one you may not have thought of: gambling companies love this because small companies are unable to audit, margins in the sector collapsed when activity moved online, that has stopped AND they are able to target customers who they don't want to deal with, before these rules it was difficult to identify customers who would take their money, now they have your passport, your address, your bank statements, they know where your money comes from (professional gamblers can still use beards but in the UK, students used to be very popular beards...that has stopped, regulators have also brought in rules to prevent beards being used as part of the changes above...the "neoliberal" US doesn't have rules anywhere close to this, it is complete madness).

Re: Addiction Markets

#54

Post by skippyboxedhero »

mberning wrote: post #26

I don’t have an overly paternalistic view of the government. I’m rather libertarian in that regard. But is it too much to ask that we place some guardrails on things that are know to have trouble with? Smoking, drinking, gambling, etc. I certainly feel that people should be able to do it if they really want to, but making it super accessible and highly advertised seems like a bad idea.

There are guardrails. Gambling is legalised to introduce guardrails so that regulated providers can exist and provide a product that stops people using offshore.

Neither accessibility or advertising impacts rates of addiction. It is a real addiction. Does a lack of advertising stop heroin use? Behave.

Re: Addiction Markets

#55

Post by BoorishBears »

savanaly wrote: post #41
gcanyon wrote: 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?

> the only “responsible” choice is not to gamble online I don't gamble at all in any form, but I still firmly disagree. Some people enjoy gambling in a way that never hurts them-- I've known countless friends and coworkers who talk about doing a bit of it in Vegas or what have you. You're saying every last one is a degenerate gambler somehow concealing it totally from me? They know they're not going net positive on t…

You can't let society keep inventing new vices for profit in an uninhibited way.

It feels like a bell curve topic, where the most naive people think you should just ban all vices and have a strictly better world, the middle of the road thinks it's all down to personal fortitude, and then people who know how the sausage is made realize the level of asymmetry that exists.

Weed isn't just weed anymore, it's fruity pebbles flavored.

Porn isn't just porn anymore, it tries to talk like a person and build a parasocial relationship.

Video games aren't just video games anymore, they start embedding gambling mechanics and spending 2 years designing the "End of Match" screen in a way that funnels you into the next game or lootbox pull.

You need to stop somewhere. Tech + profit motives create an asymmetric war for people's attention and money that results in new forms of old vices that are superficially the same, but realistically much much worse.

Gambling specifically online might just be giving tech companies too many knobs that are too easy to tune under the umbrella of engagement and retention.

Re: Addiction Markets

#56

Post by skippyboxedhero »

supportengineer wrote: post #9
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #4

> A quarter of bettors can’t pay a bill because of their wagers, a third have gambling debts, more than half carry credit card debts, and a quarter of them are afraid they can’t control their gambling. No way. It's almost like these are addictive products being engineered to be as addictive as possible and deliberately punch people's brains in such a way to make them stay. That's so weird.

>> addictive products being engineered to be as addictive as possible and deliberately punch people's brains in such a way to make them stay The exact same argument could be used to make social media illegal.

Hopefully, the responses to this have highlighted the kind of people you are dealing with.

No-one can use social media because some people in our society can't control themselves. Socialise the losses.

Re: Addiction Markets

#57

Post by skippyboxedhero »

Hasz wrote: post #24
toomuchtodo wrote: post #2

Related: Coffeezilla: Exposing the Gambling Epidemic - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45773049 - October 2025

Great video. The convergence between traditional stock market finance and casino gambling is going to seriously scar a generation.

Who do you think was buying options 30 years ago? Institutional demand, particularly for non-OTC options, was zero. Countries which have legalized gambling tend not to have large options markets.

There is no convergence. They have always been the same thing. The difference is that you can provide a venue where harm is reduced or one where harm is maximised.

Re: Addiction Markets

#58

Post by snuxoll »

savanaly wrote: post #41
gcanyon wrote: 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?

> the only “responsible” choice is not to gamble online I don't gamble at all in any form, but I still firmly disagree. Some people enjoy gambling in a way that never hurts them-- I've known countless friends and coworkers who talk about doing a bit of it in Vegas or what have you. You're saying every last one is a degenerate gambler somehow concealing it totally from me? They know they're not going net positive on t…

The problem is this: the house always wins. Casinos, online sports books, the lottery, all of it is designed such that all but quite literally a lucky few will lose money. If you understand this properly, then, yes, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it being a form of entertainment, but that means you need to go in thinking about cost per hour instead of any notion of leaving with more than you began with.

This is why I have a huge problem with the recent development of online gambling outlets that you can access via your smartphone. In the past you had to go somewhere to gamble, it was a physical act that provided a barrier to entry. Now? You don't even need to think about it, your bank account is already linked, just spend away!

Personally, I'd rather states loosen laws and allow physical casinos be built and properly regulated than be in the current situation we have with these poorly regulated online money-siphons.

Re: Addiction Markets

#59

Post by hollerith »

skippyboxedhero wrote: post #57
Hasz wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great video. The convergence between traditional stock market finance and casino gambling is going to seriously scar a generation.

Who do you think was buying options 30 years ago? Institutional demand, particularly for non-OTC options, was zero. Countries which have legalized gambling tend not to have large options markets. There is no convergence. They have always been the same thing. The difference is that you can provide a venue where harm is reduced or one where harm is maximised.

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.

Re: Addiction Markets

#60

Post by matthewdgreen »

savanaly wrote: post #41
gcanyon wrote: 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?

> the only “responsible” choice is not to gamble online I don't gamble at all in any form, but I still firmly disagree. Some people enjoy gambling in a way that never hurts them-- I've known countless friends and coworkers who talk about doing a bit of it in Vegas or what have you. You're saying every last one is a degenerate gambler somehow concealing it totally from me? They know they're not going net positive on t…

These services make a relatively smaller piece of their profit from "responsible" people with a lot of self-control. In many cases, the business is probably not viable without problem gamblers. Problem gamblers account for anywhere from 51% of revenue for sports betting apps, to 90% in the case of casinos [1,2] and the numbers seem to be getting worse.

[1] https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DMHAS/Publications/2023-CT-FIN... [2] https://www.umass.edu/seigma/media/583/download

Post reply on HN