As far as I understand, there is no suggestion that this wager is illegal.

It is just in bad taste and, from the POV of Polymarket bad publicity that they'd rather avoid (not least to avoid stricter regulations, which are being mulled).

Even here in the UK, where betting and bookmakers are legal and regulated, I think such bet is perfectly legal if you find a bookmaker to offer you odds on it.

▲

MentatOnMelange a day ago | parent [-]

Thats my point, the law has not caught up to new forms of gambling. The fact its legal to bet on whether another human being will live or die is not due to society condoning it. It's because when laws against such barbaric practices were implemented, nobody imagined they'd need to worry about people gambling on bad things happening to other human beings.

This is in part how creating laws is supposed to work. You legislate things when either something bad is happening or is likely to begin happening soon. When something new is comparable to existing unethical practices, the fact we have to update the laws is not an excuse for it being legal. Its just that the alternative is making laws based on whims or conjecture of what might happen.

▲

randomNumber7 a day ago | parent [-]

Dogfights are illegal because it is cruel to let the dogs fight to death. It's s.th. different when events happen anyways and you just place bets on them.

▲

hgoel a day ago | parent [-]

That supposes that the events are decoupled from the bets, when we've already had several cases of people possibly betting on things they either have control over, or have insider info on.

Plus, all of the reports of people being bet on receiving threats.

It's like we've forgotten all about why gambling is so heavily regulated in most of the world. It always metastizes into a cancer upon society unless very carefully and strictly confined away.

▲

randomNumber7 a day ago | parent | next [-]

> That supposes that the events are decoupled from the bets

The pilots in Iran are decoupled from the bets on polymarket. What are you talking about?

Cancer in society are intrusive persons who try to force their will upon others for no valid reason.

▲

ceejayoz a day ago | parent [-]

> The pilots in Iran are decoupled from the bets on polymarket.

Why on earth would you believe this is true?

Pilots aren't idiots. They know something's brewing. That's inside info they can trade on, or call a friend or family member back home about. There've been plenty of indications of big betting market moves in advance of public announcements of things like this.

▲

randomNumber7 a day ago | parent [-]

So the pilot that is currently on the run in Iran magically connects to the internet. Then he decides to surrender or call in help based on the bets his friends did on polymarket?

> Why on earth would you believe this is true?

IQ above average.

▲

ceejayoz a day ago | parent [-]

It doesn't have to be the pilots on the ground in Iran.

The folks back at base are gonna know quickly if they successfully get found. Everyone there'll know before it hits the media.

Or the administration officials in the Pentagon who get the news. Place bet, then leak the good news to the press.

▲

jMyles 19 hours ago | parent [-]

...is that even bad? It kinda seems good to have that signal before the military and media spin takes hold.

I was kinda on the fence about this debate, but your arguments have actually pushed me away.

	▲	ceejayoz 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, it’s really bad. Now you have to worry about troops having placed bets on outcomes they’re part of. “Oh shit, I think I see the guy… but I lose $50k if I call out because I bet he wouldn’t be found today! Better be quiet.” They are also essentially stealing from the counterparty on the bet. Same reason insider trading is illegal.

▲

codeddesign a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Wall Street is heavily regulated, and yet both of your examples still occur.

This happens in sports betting as well, which is also regulated.

Neither of your examples show a material change or resolution due to regulation. The only result would be increased bureaucracy and decreased technology advancement.

▲

bigbadfeline 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Wall Street is heavily regulated, and yet both of your examples still occur. > Neither of your examples show a material change or resolution due to regulation.

I'm not sure how "still occur" became "the same result in both cases" - the latter is an extraordinary claim lacking any evidence.

Are you assuming that regulation is only admissible when it prevents every single event that is contrary to it?

Moreover, we are often seeing cases of regulation theater - the regulations in the books have convenient loopholes or are only selectively enforced, if at all.

Even in these cases it's a serious stretch to claim that the situations with and without regulation are materially the same.

	▲	codeddesign 37 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Does insider trading still routinely happen? YES. Do athletes, refs, coaches still throw games? YES. Your argument is that regulation would fix both, and my argument is that regulation has not fixed either. Wall Street is just as shady not with regulation as it was in the 1930’s without. The only major difference now is that the IRS is able to track and tax smaller entities easier.

▲

a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]