Legalizing sports gambling was the biggest unforced error in United States public policy in living memory. I expect that almost nobody reading Hacker News has a gambling problem, but people at the other end of the economic spectrum are being absolutely ripped up by it. Unfortunately, it's probably not going to change soon. Too much money to be made now.
Perhaps selfishly as I'm not much a gambler, I hate it because it ruined sports. You have a barrage of ads and odds that plague every game at every turn. You have a handful of players already caught betting on their own games, which means there are many more who just haven't been caught yet. And now, every single bad call leads fans to "refs must have money on this game", and to be honest, who knows if they do.
> Legalizing sports gambling was the biggest unforced error in United States public policy in living memory.
That's a tough sell; the US makes a lot of errors. Assuming "public policy" means "domestic"; their industrial policy promoting deindustrialisation seems like a bigger error. After a few moments of thought I'd probably argue the Bush-Obama era establishment of a massive internal surveillance apparatus (including a secret court) is a strong contender for biggest unforced error in living memory. There might be bigger ones but the US citizens lost a remarkable amount there. It is no longer possible to know what the laws of the US are, because some of them are secret. And the use of spying and federal harassment of political opponents seems to have been steadily normalising.
Even just background over-regulation on starting and running new businesses is probably going to cause more damage to poor people than legalising sports gambling.
Industrial policy promoting deindustrialization was a migration (the same one all advanced economies make) toward higher value-add tasks.
The surveillance apparatus was created to prevent another 9/11 which quite possibly would have destabilized the state itself.
These may or may not have been mistakes, may or may not have been worth it, may or may not have been illegal, etc. etc., but they both had a pretty coherent rationale for them.
What's the rationale for legalized sports betting? It's such an obscenely indefensible change that any politician advocating for it should be investigated relentlessly (at least journalistically) until the day they die.
> It is no longer possible to know what the laws of the US are, because some of them are secret.
That's not true.
> Even just background over-regulation on starting and running new businesses is probably going to cause more damage to poor people than legalising sports gambling.
Being higher on the socioeconomic ladder doesn't protect you from addiction. I believe it makes it easier for some to get their fill and remain high-functioning; ie not becoming destitute.
But for others their "fill" is so high their addictions will wreck them entirely regardless of means.
But perhaps to your point, if I'm give it charity, people with less means are more likely to get entirely wrecked by certain addictions.
Yea, many people I know who had any pre-existing interest in any of the various Sportsball games are now all neck deep in sports betting apps, from investment bankers to shelf stockers at Home Depot. I don't know which of them are suffering financially from it, but all they do when we get together anymore is talk about sports betting.
Cautionary note (and a serious one, not to be snarky): Being well off financially is not a protection against gambling addiction (which can also take the form of day trading, for example); which is a pretty efficient way to ruin ones financial wealth, amongst other things.
As with many other psychological phenomenona, finances and education only protect to a certain degree or not at all, depending on what one is talking about in detail.
This is not a comment about correlation or causation of wealth with mental health, but rather a warning to keep in the back of ones head; success and a sharp mind don't make one immune against mental health issues in general and gambling addiction in particular.
Here's how I see what's going on, turning subtext to text...
* Person 1: "$THING is a problem for a significant chunk of people. My audience here probably doesn't experience it subjectively, but it's still objectively true."
* Person 2: "But what if we are feeling it!? Ah-hah! I found an error! You goofed!"
* (Me): "That's really not their point, stop nitpicking the disclaimer."
Addictions are irrational and anyone can fall prey to them, people here are no exception. The only difference between a poor, uneducated gambler and a well-off, educated gambler is how they talk about it, how much they can afford to bet, and which games of chance they lose at.
Beyond that however I agree that turning this loose on the American public is an incredibly short-sighted act, but it's part of a pattern rather than an outlier.
Are they? If in Australia you walk into one of those gambling places, you'll quickly see those people have no real economic future, with or without gambling. They're not part of a large family either. They don't have or have lost their spouse and are just looking for some fun. They will live at or just above the level that social assistance can let them live until they die, and a bankruptcy due to gambling will make surprisingly little difference (hell, it may allow them not to work for a decade).
So rationality? You're assuming there's good options available for these people. But if they don't own a home ... they won't lose much, and their careers provide them with little to gain month to month.
Isn't it rational under those circumstances to try to get quick large reward ... or fail entirely? When you have no real other options and even arguably little to lose?
The time when being a non-educated worker in a big city would get you a house, a family, and pretty good comfort, enabling ordering 5 beers most evenings in a pub, have a hobby, ... has long ended, at least in Australia.
Tradies make good money in Australia, far better than most Western countries, without a college education. If anything it's the educated middle class (teachers, nurses, etc) that's getting squeezed.
The stereotypical problem gambler in Australia is a lonely retiree blowing their pension at the pokies (slots), and clubs and casinos go all out to cater to this demographic with free taxi services etc.
You'll find the wealthier gamblers in nicer places, doing it online, in socially acceptable forums like private games, and most of all by traveling to very nice destinations that make the experience properly "luxurious" for their standards... i.e. Macao, Hong Kong, etc.
The fact that you can go into any neighborhood dive bar and see a bunch of nearly indigent drunks doesn't mean that people aren't drinking themselves to death in mansions, private clubs, or $1000 a meal restaurants.
As for rational risk, most people consider the line between having enough for daily expenses, making debt payments, and having a place to rent is a massive upgrade over a shelter or the streets. Or working a second job, or a third.
I wonder why they don't allow betting if the Kalshi offices are going to be fire bombed? It seems like they are missing out on important wisdom of the crowd information!
I would laugh harder, except we hear arguments exactly like this posted regularly to HN as someone's seriously held belief. It's hard to tell satire anymore.
You lucky guys. My country generates probably the same amount. And we have 1/50th of your population. Everywhere is casinos ads and gambling and payday loans and pawnshops.
I'm glad I read this, but I wish the HN title included the subtitle too--it would be nice to be able to know know what the article was about before clicking it.
People excoriate Meta for its practices but they don't even touch the pure evil in psychological manipulation that seems to be openly tolerated with sports gambling.
I've stopped watching all sports because of this. You can't even talk about sports online now without some dull punter whining that their parlay didn't hit. It's nauseating. The gambling industry produces no value.
Are there safe ways to regulate gambling? If we capped everyone's yearly gambling budget to some % of tax they paid, (with some floor), does that solve anything?
I'm honestly curious if it's better to have some outlet for people who love gambling, and just have some cap, vs trying to ban it altogether.
I know you’re probably looking for a serious response, which I don’t have, but my half serious one is: this is why I spend $100 at Round One or Dave & Busters about twice a year. Between coin pushers, crane games, and ticket games, it scratches that gambling itch for me without turning into a full-blown addiction.
gambling unfortunately is human nature. its much better to regulate vices then prohibition which leads to criminality and an increase in adjacent crime like racketeering and extortion
In general, it really does reduce the prevalence of something to ban it or nearly so. To take examples that both the American left and right hate to think about:
- Banning abortion really does make it harder to get one.
- Banning handgun sales really do make those harder to get as well.
(And yes, I am using the word "ban" as shorthand for "extremely tight/onerous regulations in red and blue states, respectively".)
Bans also make the activity more physically dangerous. Banning abortions just means women will do them in some unregulated, dangerous back alley. Banning gun sales just means people have to deal with the black market and gangsters to buy them. As much as I hate sports betting, banning it means the gamblers will go to some shady bookie who will break their fingers if they don't pay up.
> its much better to regulate vices then prohibition
One way to regulate a vice is to completely ban advertising it.
Another is to make it inconvenient to access - offline only, away from schools, places of worship, commercial areas, or other places people congregate.
The whole article's complaint isn't about the legality of sports gambling. It's about the prevalence of advertising. Of course the author doesn't like it, period, but once the billions started rolling in the politicians got out of the way.
I'm sure this will be inflammatory, but's not meant to be. It's like having separate smoking areas in bars/restaurants vs everybody smokes anywhere they want.
This isn't alcohol with it's obvious deleterious effects. This is gambling, where the activity is hidden like cancer, until it grows into devastation to entire families.
> its much better to regulate vices then prohibition
And applied to gambling, this seems like an conjured argument, so oft repeated it has morphed into a platitude. I'm not aware of research that indicate that having the state safeguard gambling improves society in a quantifiable way - the lowest possible bar of "much better".
The gross proliferation of gambling ads certainly feels far removed from any notion of watching out for society's well being.
My knee jerk reaction was "Okay, let's start regulating with banning advertising of sports betting apps." because according to this article they are essentially targeting kids with it. Valve/Steam certainly contribute their fair share to normalizing and promoting gambling to children.
But i do not see, what the meta-narrative wrapped around the problem adds to the conversation. What do all these moralin negators add to the conversation? Just step back, be a example and remain virtuous while the rest of the world follows "First comes the feast, then the morals?"
This is such a discourse decay, we used to have analysis, a whole pyramid of needs- and a culture with a dedication to keeping the machine that gives us the luxus of morals at any costs. Now instead of guarding civilizations and the machine that keeps it going, we get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellant, for whom their virtuous self-important abstinence from the decay, makes them blue blooded, nobles even.
Is gambling human nature? I have no urge to gamble, especially since I know the odds nor am not someone willing to take advantage of others on the other side.
Do people who have actually had to earn and deserve what they have gamble?
I think its hard to tell who will get into gambling and who will turn it into a problem. I used to be into live Poker (I skipped the whole online thing). It never became a problem because 1. It didn't consume my life, and 2. I wasn't a bad player and probably broke even over 10 years or so. Eventually got kind of bored of it and just play with friends now. I brought a few friends to the poker room after they expressed interest in learning. Unfortunately, one of them went totally bananas on it and it really negatively affected his life and financials. The rest of my friends kept it totally casual and kind of quit when they found other things to do. I think you can never tell who's susceptible and who isn't.
Reasonable overview here and it's only gotten worse since 2024. https://thezvi.substack.com/p/the-online-sports-gambling-exp...
That's a tough sell; the US makes a lot of errors. Assuming "public policy" means "domestic"; their industrial policy promoting deindustrialisation seems like a bigger error. After a few moments of thought I'd probably argue the Bush-Obama era establishment of a massive internal surveillance apparatus (including a secret court) is a strong contender for biggest unforced error in living memory. There might be bigger ones but the US citizens lost a remarkable amount there. It is no longer possible to know what the laws of the US are, because some of them are secret. And the use of spying and federal harassment of political opponents seems to have been steadily normalising.
Even just background over-regulation on starting and running new businesses is probably going to cause more damage to poor people than legalising sports gambling.
The surveillance apparatus was created to prevent another 9/11 which quite possibly would have destabilized the state itself.
These may or may not have been mistakes, may or may not have been worth it, may or may not have been illegal, etc. etc., but they both had a pretty coherent rationale for them.
What's the rationale for legalized sports betting? It's such an obscenely indefensible change that any politician advocating for it should be investigated relentlessly (at least journalistically) until the day they die.
> It is no longer possible to know what the laws of the US are, because some of them are secret.
That's not true.
> Even just background over-regulation on starting and running new businesses is probably going to cause more damage to poor people than legalising sports gambling.
Absurd statement.
But for others their "fill" is so high their addictions will wreck them entirely regardless of means.
But perhaps to your point, if I'm give it charity, people with less means are more likely to get entirely wrecked by certain addictions.
As with many other psychological phenomenona, finances and education only protect to a certain degree or not at all, depending on what one is talking about in detail.
This is not a comment about correlation or causation of wealth with mental health, but rather a warning to keep in the back of ones head; success and a sharp mind don't make one immune against mental health issues in general and gambling addiction in particular.
I'm eating just ramen here ...
Here's an unforced error.
* Person 1: "$THING is a problem for a significant chunk of people. My audience here probably doesn't experience it subjectively, but it's still objectively true."
* Person 2: "But what if we are feeling it!? Ah-hah! I found an error! You goofed!"
* (Me): "That's really not their point, stop nitpicking the disclaimer."
Beyond that however I agree that turning this loose on the American public is an incredibly short-sighted act, but it's part of a pattern rather than an outlier.
So rationality? You're assuming there's good options available for these people. But if they don't own a home ... they won't lose much, and their careers provide them with little to gain month to month.
Isn't it rational under those circumstances to try to get quick large reward ... or fail entirely? When you have no real other options and even arguably little to lose?
The time when being a non-educated worker in a big city would get you a house, a family, and pretty good comfort, enabling ordering 5 beers most evenings in a pub, have a hobby, ... has long ended, at least in Australia.
The stereotypical problem gambler in Australia is a lonely retiree blowing their pension at the pokies (slots), and clubs and casinos go all out to cater to this demographic with free taxi services etc.
The fact that you can go into any neighborhood dive bar and see a bunch of nearly indigent drunks doesn't mean that people aren't drinking themselves to death in mansions, private clubs, or $1000 a meal restaurants.
As for rational risk, most people consider the line between having enough for daily expenses, making debt payments, and having a place to rent is a massive upgrade over a shelter or the streets. Or working a second job, or a third.
They're truly just caught up in a pissing match with their peers.
I'm going with the rollout of LED headlights on that one, but reasonable people can disagree.
No reference - no comparison.
Betting of any type is bad for humanity
You should allow people to bet sums on whether you're gonna get shot tomorrow, so you can have the best possible information!
Of course there's no incentives for acting badly against you, and if there are it's again, just price discovery.
[0] https://www.statista.com/chart/29332/gross-gaming-revenue-fr...
gambling - where the statistical odds are that you lose
investing - where the odds are you win
I'm honestly curious if it's better to have some outlet for people who love gambling, and just have some cap, vs trying to ban it altogether.
morality is completely out the window
(And yes, I am using the word "ban" as shorthand for "extremely tight/onerous regulations in red and blue states, respectively".)
One way to regulate a vice is to completely ban advertising it.
Another is to make it inconvenient to access - offline only, away from schools, places of worship, commercial areas, or other places people congregate.
The whole article's complaint isn't about the legality of sports gambling. It's about the prevalence of advertising. Of course the author doesn't like it, period, but once the billions started rolling in the politicians got out of the way.
I'm sure this will be inflammatory, but's not meant to be. It's like having separate smoking areas in bars/restaurants vs everybody smokes anywhere they want.
> its much better to regulate vices then prohibition
And applied to gambling, this seems like an conjured argument, so oft repeated it has morphed into a platitude. I'm not aware of research that indicate that having the state safeguard gambling improves society in a quantifiable way - the lowest possible bar of "much better".
The gross proliferation of gambling ads certainly feels far removed from any notion of watching out for society's well being.
But i do not see, what the meta-narrative wrapped around the problem adds to the conversation. What do all these moralin negators add to the conversation? Just step back, be a example and remain virtuous while the rest of the world follows "First comes the feast, then the morals?"
This is such a discourse decay, we used to have analysis, a whole pyramid of needs- and a culture with a dedication to keeping the machine that gives us the luxus of morals at any costs. Now instead of guarding civilizations and the machine that keeps it going, we get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellant, for whom their virtuous self-important abstinence from the decay, makes them blue blooded, nobles even.
Do people who have actually had to earn and deserve what they have gamble?