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

The rising human cost of sports betting

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 337 posts

Re: The rising human cost of sports betting

#91

Post by paganel »

mdoms wrote: post #47
paganel wrote: post #24

I can confirm that sports betting is also slowly eating away at what is left of the game of football (soccer, for US HN-ers) over here in Europe. We’ve got the English Premier League and the Champions League that are (maybe) still free of this cancer, as in (maybe) their results and general play are as close to 100%-fair as one can get, but outside of that it’s the Wild West. The second leagues in most of Central and…

Are you saying that players are throwing games due to sports betting? Can you give an example? I'm not doubting you, I have never followed football so I have no idea, I'm just curious. Especially about your statement "...if you know where to look and how to look at things it all becomes clear(er)".

> Can you give an example?

It's in Romanian, because this is the league I follow, but something like this [1], maybe Google Translate can help, basically a player (incidentally, playing for the team I follow) letting in a goal just because (the goal on YT in here [2]). Maybe that was still because of a genuine mistake, but searching for "pariuri site:https://liga2.prosport.ro/" returns many other articles related to suspected betting in the Romanian second league.

Also, at a (much) higher level club owners like Napoli's De Laurentiis might be crazy enough (I do personally see him capable of that) to be directly involved in this sort of stuff.

There was a very suspect thing happening at the end of last season in Italy, basically Napoli needed a (relatively easy) home win in the last stage against a smaller opponent which had nothing to gain anymore, but they didn't, the match ended 1-1 [3], so Juventus (one of Napoli's biggest rivals) got their CL place instead. As a Juventus fan I saw that as very, very suspicious, especially as I could have sort of guessed beforehand that that sort of thing would happen.

And before anyones says: "no Serie A club owner would do such a highly illegal thing!" a couple of months ago Sampdoria's (now former) club owner got arrested because of some other illegal shenanigans (afaik not betting-related)

[1] https://liga2.prosport.ro/cupa-romaniei/se-va-sesiza-comisia...

[2] https://youtu.be/Gl4gkgL25wE?t=237

[3] https://www.espn.com/soccer/report/_/gameId/582783

Re: The rising human cost of sports betting

#92

Post by Raidion »

wolverine876 wrote: post #31

> Wagering on sports is “endemic and acceptable and so mainstream that it is now a major pillar of American entertainment,” said Timothy Fong, one of the directors of the gambling studies program at U.C.L.A. A rhetorical technique: Make the problem seem inevitable, make any opposition seem powerless. Then make the question about the rest of society adapting to it - everyone has to adapt so the gambling industry can m…

I mean, would you say the "we've lost the drug war" falls into that rhetorical technique? Is that just saying "everyone has to adapt so the pot industry can make money?"

Or "pandemics are inevitable, we can't contain them, so everyone has to adapt so the pharma industry can make money?"

Seems like calling out that form as a "rhetorical technique" is not useful in determining the quality of the argument.

Re: The rising human cost of sports betting

#93

Post by [deleted] »

cactus2093 wrote: post #16
Guest42 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree but also wish that a similar sentiment was applied to modern investment strategies.

What do you mean by modern? My understanding is that the rise of index funds has been the biggest trend in this space over the past 20-30 years. Riskier bets like individual stock picking, or "experts" that con others with dubious ways of predicting the future, have been around forever.

[deleted]

Re: The rising human cost of sports betting

#94

Post by Pet_Ant »

slap_shot wrote: post #78
babypuncher wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that should be illegal. If we are going to allow casinos to operate at all, then we shouldn't allow them to discriminate against potential customers on the basis that said customers are better at the game. If that means their business model is no longer viable, then that is their problem.

This is exactly my point. I'm not against outlawing casinos (i think you should be able to do pretty much whatever the eff you want with your body and money). BUT if we are going to allow them, should we allow them to only let people play when they lose? The decision to let them exist is as arbitrary as the decision to allow them to only play when they when.

>([I] think you should be able to do pretty much whatever the eff you want with your body and money). ... The decision to let the exist is as arbitrary as the decision to allow them to only play when they [win].

How do you square that with giving people autonomy? You can do what you want with your money, but you can't play if you don't feel like you are gonna win... there is an inherent contradiction there.

Re: The rising human cost of sports betting

#95

Post by michaelt »

cactus2093 wrote: post #16
Guest42 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree but also wish that a similar sentiment was applied to modern investment strategies.

What do you mean by modern? My understanding is that the rise of index funds has been the biggest trend in this space over the past 20-30 years. Riskier bets like individual stock picking, or "experts" that con others with dubious ways of predicting the future, have been around forever.

Well, there are various other modern trends:

* All stock market stuff feels modern, because 15-year-olds don't talk about it but 25-year-olds do. So it feels like something that wasn't really around/popular when you were young.

* Some would say retailer investors who want to buy individual stocks should be holding them for the long term - and that a mobile app, letting you trade on the go, is an anti-feature.

* The rise of Reddit's Wall Street Bets, who glorify moves that seem really dumb.

* The rise of Cryptocurrencies, and/or their marketing to unsophisticated investors. If I put my entire life's savings into Dogecoin, does that mark me as someone so dumb you should save me from myself?

Re: The rising human cost of sports betting

#96

Post by wolverine876 »

hattmall wrote: post #43
ben7799 wrote: post #18

I think it's just a matter of time before we see a Super Bowl or World Series thrown due to the legalization of Sport betting... We have been here before and seen all of this before and it's really hard to believe history won't repeat itself. It's stupid all the way down.

Legal sports betting makes it less likely to have the game thrown. The Athlete salaries far outpace the potential gains of an individual bettor so you need bookmaker involvement but the legal books are so large that they don't won't one-sided games or any particular outcome. They are able to balance their books and make money like never before by keeping an even line. It's only when the house is constrained in their…

> Legal sports betting makes it less likely to have the game thrown.

Wow, that is Orwellian.

> The Athlete salaries far outpace the potential gains

That's only true for a few top athletes, and ignores others (referees, coaches, etc.), and the fact that careers are short. For example, in American football, you only have to buy a kicker or long snapper, who can easily change the game (as long as it's reasonably close). NFL referees aren't even full-time employees.

> you need bookmaker involvement but the legal books are so large that they don't won't one-sided games or any particular outcome

After seeing all the brazen fraud and deceit in American (and other) business, costing lives, tanking the global economy, causing climate change, fixing LIBOR, pushing crypto scams, etc. etc., we should believe that bookmakers would never take that risk? They must be an especially risk-averse, honest group!

Also, not all gambling is legal.

Re: The rising human cost of sports betting

#97

Post by thebean11 »

PKop wrote: post #72
thebean11 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Effectiveness of prohibition is determined in large part on severity of punishments. The punishments for drugs are pretty severe in much of the US (multiple years in prison). Are you advocating for even harsher punishments than that?

Well, yes I am. But is that relevant to the question at hand: if the punishments were more severe, would they decrease drug selling/use? How about if we banned Narcan, do you think that would affect the total number of opiate addicts long term? What if we cut off the hands of drug dealers? Or applied the death penalty to drug dealers? What if we rounded up all the addicts that commit so many crimes in cities today, a…

Yes I think cutting off arms would discourage drug use to some extent, but I think the price is too high. At some point a policy like that creates more suffering than it prevents. From your example on throwing people into the ocean, it sounds like you agree that a tradeoff exist here. Unless you actually think killing drug users is a good solution to reduce drug use?

The question was never whether it was possible to curb drug use with the legal system (that seems like a straw man), but whether the cure is worse than the disease, or whether an alternative cure might be better.

Re: The rising human cost of sports betting

#98

Post by animal_spirits »

Raidion wrote: post #80
animal_spirits wrote: post #8

Promotion of gambling should be likened to promotion of cigarettes. It should be illegal to advertise gambling, but I don't think it should be outlawed to gamble. People should be able to choose how they live their lives, but we should do all that we can to prevent mass manipulation through adverts in industries that are known to be harmful. I also think that alcohol and e-cig advertising should be outlawed as well.

I honestly agree with you, but am worried about the precedent it would set. If you start banning stuff because of addiction, does it apply to things like soda or fast food? Would it apply to things like baseball cards or other collectables? This is a really tricky problem, as there is clear evidence that these things hurt society as a whole, but it's hard to draw the line who is making deliberate choices about their…

Idk people say its hard to draw the line but it doesn't seem like it would be. Here's the line: no advertising for cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, e-cigs. Why this line? these are pretty obviously unhealthy for people. Why not some other line? Well lets take a poll and see what we are willing to do. And then if people think it is important to ban other types of advertising then that can be a new line drawn later.

Re: The rising human cost of sports betting

#99

Post by RedAlakazam »

slap_shot wrote: post #46

I'm pretty Laissez-Faire about things, but a recent interaction with gambling is making me reconsider: My friend got a lot of free credits from the major sports books and wrote some code that he felt could generate a profit. We all threw in a little bit of money and let the program do what it does. Within a month we started doing 1k a day in profit on 3k wagered. Right as we approached 30k in profit, every major book…

Did you guys achieve this by creating a model for all kinds of different sports or did you hunt the arbitrage from different betting providers?

Re: The rising human cost of sports betting

#100

Post by wolverine876 »

Raidion wrote: post #80
animal_spirits wrote: post #8

Promotion of gambling should be likened to promotion of cigarettes. It should be illegal to advertise gambling, but I don't think it should be outlawed to gamble. People should be able to choose how they live their lives, but we should do all that we can to prevent mass manipulation through adverts in industries that are known to be harmful. I also think that alcohol and e-cig advertising should be outlawed as well.

I honestly agree with you, but am worried about the precedent it would set. If you start banning stuff because of addiction, does it apply to things like soda or fast food? Would it apply to things like baseball cards or other collectables? This is a really tricky problem, as there is clear evidence that these things hurt society as a whole, but it's hard to draw the line who is making deliberate choices about their…

It's not like we don't have experience with making gambling illegal.
Post reply on HN