Many people enjoy gambling, and relatively few have a "problem", so "negative public good" is doing a lot of work there. DraftKings may indeed by unethical, but that doesn't mean that all or even most others are.

▲

SaucyWrong a day ago | parent | next [-]

In my state (Massachusetts), the number of people who call in to the state’s gambling problem hotline doubled after online sports books became legalized. That is, by definition, a negative effect on the public good. The net number of people seeking help for gambling problems increased by 100%.

▲

pbronez a day ago | parent [-]

It’s definitely bad that twice as many people have a gambling problem. However to assess the NET impact you also have to count how much value/fun/whatever the non-problem-gamblers are having, plus whatever tax revenues you get, increased economic activity from more attention on sports, etc.

Personally I think these companies suck. Just need more work to make a strong good faith argument about it.

▲

vintermann a day ago | parent | next [-]

I think an important question to ask is: how much of a company's income comes from harmful use?

Gambling (and some other industries, in particular alcohol) come out so bad on this metric, you can practically let the industry define excessive use themselves. In order to claim most of their money comes from "healthy normal entertainment use" or similar, they'd have to claim absurd things, such as that drinking a bottle of whisky per day or spending your entire paycheck each month on slots can be healthy, normal use.

▲

AlexandrB a day ago | parent | prev [-]

My problem with sports gambling is that all these companies are lying. If you win a lot you get (the gambling equivalent of) shadow banned[1]. The provider pretends they're providing a game where you can "win big" and it's all up to your knowledge of sports, but the reality is that it's a skewed playing field where you can either lose or lose more.

The common industry explanation is that this is because they would be unprofitable if they allowed "winners" to keep betting, which tells you everything you need to know. These businesses can only exist because they're allowed to skew the odds in their favour. Eliminate this unfair practice and the problem goes away on its own.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/feb/19/stake-factor...

▲

VBprogrammer a day ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah, I've worked in the industry for a long time. I think good regulation would prevent per punter limits. I don't really see why doing this would make the industry unprofitable, the odds have a margin baked in, exactly the same as a 0 (and in the US the 00) in roulette. Worst case they would have to increase the margin, which maybe isn't so good for casual players but at least it's a level playing field.

I also find the common implementation of in-play delay poor. The way it generally works is a delay is applied before confirming the bet, anything which changes (including pricing) causes the bet to be rejected. The main reason for this is that the traders sometimes only have access to something like sky sports so their feed is quite far behind someone at the stadium. I feel like in reality it should be based on official timings.

▲

erfgh a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They will just switch to a betting exchange model where the house gets a percentage of the turnover and the rest is distributed to the players. Under this model there is no incentive to ban winners.

	▲	davewritescode a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It’s possible this is the future of the industry. The big money maker in prediction markets is combos or parlays in traditional sports betting. The market for these types of bets is tiny so you need Wall Street firms like Susquehanna to come in and provide liquidity which is what they do for Kalshi. What this means in practice is you don’t place a bet with fixed odds, it’s more like placing a market order on a stock. If a Sportsbook could effectively give custom odds on each bet for each player based on the market it would essentially be what prediction markets do today.
	▲	VBprogrammer a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The problem with this is liquidity, particularly well before an event. It's why the original exchange (or at least the first one I'm aware of) also now offer a normal sportsbook.

▲

lordnacho a day ago | parent | prev [-]

But the two big players in question do not do this, do they?

▲

frumplestlatz a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Gambling is extractive by definition, so I’m not particularly convinced that it’s not a problem for most of the people that “enjoy” it.

▲

davewritescode a day ago | parent | next [-]

I have worked in gaming before so feel free to disregard my opinion but I truly do enjoy occasional betting and while its hard to argue it’s a net positive in my life it has never caused any financial hardship.

Betting $25 on a game hijacks something in my brain that treats it like a fun problem to solve. It gets me interested in teams that I’d otherwise have no interest in. I’ve been betting on sports since the days of offshore betting sites and I can’t say I’ve ever lost or gained more than a few hundred dollars a year.

I’m an adult and I enjoy being able to gamble on sports. It’s never been a problem for me and I suspect it never will be because of the way I do treat it, strictly something to be done for fun.

I grew up in a household where family members also went to casinos and bet on sports responsibly so it was drilled into my head that you can’t ever beat the house and you should never bet what you couldn’t afford to lose.

What business do you have telling me what I’m allowed to do with my own money for fun?

▲

TheOtherHobbes a day ago | parent | next [-]

I'm someone who thinks corporations shouldn't be free to prey lawlessly on emotional weaknesses.

What business do you have telling everyone your personal experience justifies the horror others experience?

If you couldn't put down that $25, would you really not be able to find some other way to entertain yourself?

	▲	davewritescode a day ago \| parent [-]
		Making gambling illegal doesn’t make it just go away. My Grandfather used to bet on sports in 40s and 50s with a local bookie. The bookies even ran sweepstakes which resembled the modern day lotto which my great grandmother played every week. People like to gamble we need it legalized with reasonable regulations. What my big problem is that Wall St and the wider market seems to be trending to the least ethical companies (Kalshi, Polymarket, Bettr) are running unregulated gambling operations, providing 0 tax money to offset societal costs and are denying what they’re offering is gambling at all and even promising you can make money off it.

▲

JohnTHaller a day ago | parent | prev [-]

The fact that you and the industry try to call it "gaming" is still such a scummy thing. It's gambling. Call it what it is.

▲

ekholm_e a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I mean, it depends. Gambling in moderation is fine, and it can be fun. Aside from concerns about supporting casinos/gambling companies (which I'll acknowledge are real), I don't see any difference between paying $200 to play blackjack for a couple of hours and paying $200 for some other form of entertainment (e.g. attending a live show).

▲

boelboel a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Gambling isn't all the same, betting on horse races in person can be quite an enjoyable experience it's not nearly as accessible as online gambling.