Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The battle to stop clever people betting

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 134 posts

Re: The battle to stop clever people betting

#51

Post by chongli »

woooooo wrote: post #21
Havoc wrote: post #3

I'd venture that actually smart people don't go near this at all because they know telling yourself "I'm better than others and won't get addicted"...all to chase a couple bucks is the height of folly. Polymarket has me intrigued though. Especially stuff like their geopolitics section...as a measure of how good one's read of the world is. Still gambling in disguise though

Smart people can like sports, and there's a century long history of "sharps" who are better than most at sports gambling.

People who find an edge and actually make a lot of money aren’t really gamblers though, they’re hackers. The bets they’re placing are guaranteed to pay out as long as their edge is maintained. They often retire after the edge is discovered and fixed.

Re: The battle to stop clever people betting

#52

Post by astura »

pfdietz wrote: post #22

Does Ozempic ameliorate gambling addiction, as it seems to do to alcohol and other drug addictions?

Yes, it decreases urges for a very wide range of compulsive behaviors, including (but not limited to) gambling, shopping, nail biting, and skin picking.

Re: The battle to stop clever people betting

#53

Post by subjectsigma »

m4ck_ wrote: post #26

I would love to see the gambling industry beaten back into whatever holes they slithered out of. If you want to gamble it should be in some smokey back room at a liquor store. I'm surprised the christian right isn't making more of a fuss about gambling, but I guess they're getting greased to look the other way.

Just spent the holidays with my family who fit squarely within “the Christian right”. I would say they are mostly uninformed on the topic. They don’t understand why digital sports betting is worse than a casino.

Re: The battle to stop clever people betting

#55

Post by singron »

dangus wrote: post #10
Havoc wrote: post #3

I'd venture that actually smart people don't go near this at all because they know telling yourself "I'm better than others and won't get addicted"...all to chase a couple bucks is the height of folly. Polymarket has me intrigued though. Especially stuff like their geopolitics section...as a measure of how good one's read of the world is. Still gambling in disguise though

I imagine there’s lots of money to be made on fools in polymarket, like “Will the US confirm that aliens exist in 2025?” That topic had over a 10% “yes” chance in January. Betting no on that is better taking out a CD.

You can still make that bet at 10% "yes" for the next year. Previous years had similar patterns, so it's not a reaction to Trump.

To be fair, we don't need to find little green men in a UFO. It's sufficient to e.g. find fossils of extinct microorganisms on Mars, which is a slim possibility that's a goal of the Mars Sample Return mission.

These markets also have low volume at reasonable prices. If you bought $10K of "no" right now for next year, you would only get an 8% return, not 10%. You could execute better trades to get better prices, but the odds also become more sane over the year. The S&P 500 is also up 18% YTD (13% YoY for the last 5) and you can buy as much of that as you want.

Re: The battle to stop clever people betting

#56

Post by skippyboxedhero »

piva00 wrote: post #38
skippyboxedhero wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The analogue that people have of betting is, for some reason, drugs. Addiction is an inherent property of taking drugs. Gambling is not like this in any way. It is not inherently addictive, 99% of people who gamble have no issue with it. It isn't to chase a couple of bucks either. Billy Walter has made hundreds of millions. A recent court case leaked that Tony Bloom's syndicate was making £200m in profit per year. Th…

> The idea of personal responsibility will always be completely abhorrent to some part of the population. The idea of personal responsibility is also way overrated by some part of the population like you, gambling is addictive and a net negative to society. Problem gamblers ruin not only their life but of their families as well, it's an addiction with a very high rate of suicide. Allowing it to be done through your p…

Okay, so you believe there is nothing that anyone can do...so logically, you would also believe that any form of gambling addiction treatment is pointless? The issue with your point of view is that it defies any sense of understanding about what addiction actually is, there are no possible solutions apart from the government just banning everything in sight.

The purpose is that gambling is fun. That is it. Eating fast food is fun. Drinking alcohol is fun. There are people who are addicting to shopping, so we can ban that too? It is a net negative to you (again, the classic contradiction: YOU believe gambling is wrong so you characterise it is a society wide problem...individual agency doesn't exist though? everyone agrees with something because YOU think it) because you don't enjoy it. It is like saying food consumption is a net negative because it is a sunk cost...in reality, people enjoy eating food, they will spend money on food that is more expensive than basic sustenance for enjoyment, and people enjoy gambling because it is entertaining. No crazy theories required, it is fun, people should be allowed to have fun.

Also, they supply very addictive things at the candy store...candy. Not everyone gets addicted, but you think we should also ban them? Eating candy is clearly a systemic issue, right? Nothing to do with personal feelings, it is a systemic issue with insufficient government intervention in the supply of candy. Candy exists, and for what purpose? Lol, it is like talking to a robot.

Because there is no systemic issue. You are saying that people are just mindless drones who have no control over their actions. Again, ban gambling therapy...must be completely pointless? There is nothing that anyone can do?

No victims are being blamed, I just don't have the arrogance to call people who do something I don't like or behave in a way that I wouldn't a "victim". They aren't victims. Gambling addiction will exist no matter how much we ban, there are gambling addicts in your paradise of Saudi Arabia, and they get no help because they live within a system that denies individual agency replacing it with religious agency. Some things are addictive, those things can also be enjoyable to other people without harm, it is okay for people to enjoy things that aren't enjoyed by other people, it is okay to have fun.

Re: The battle to stop clever people betting

#57

Post by OutOfHere »

There is a simple and honest way to deal with it. It is to inform the dumb users before they place a bet that the historically smart winners have stacked up against them. If done well, it should substantially help even the odds.

Anyhow, this is why a better should stick to platforms that are unbiased.

Re: The battle to stop clever people betting

#58

Post by integralid »

int32_64 wrote: post #47

As the middle class continues to shrink in the West the gambling crisis will only get worse. It has to be understood by older people that for many young people the only way to afford a lifestyle previously achievable in many cities with a basic job is to win the lottery.

Gambling addiction is a pretty certain way to become poor though.

Re: The battle to stop clever people betting

#59

Post by jbstack »

ekjhgkejhgk wrote: post #44

If you want to bet, you could do so in regulated markets like financial markets. This isn't a smartass remark "stock market is gambling". I literally mean that the financial markets went through all this bullshit 100 years ago, and came up with rules to make them fairer. For example, you won't be blocked from the stock market just because you do really well.

It's a bad analogy because the incentives are totally different. With sports betting (of the type in the article) you're betting against the bookmaker. If you win, they lose, and vice versa. Obviously it's better for them that you lose.

With financial markets you are betting against other users. The ones running the market take fees on each transaction, so they don't care whether you win or lose. Their incentive is just to keep you making transactions.

Post reply on HN