Trump administration pushing aggressive expansion of sports betting

ThatRobGuy · Saturday at 6:49 PM

FireDragon76 said:
That may be too simplistic a question to ask. "Morally acceptable" may not mean, "I want unregulated gambling everywhere". Public opinion polls also don't give a straightforward answer on how lawmakers should make decisions- public opinion matters, but so does actual technical expertise and moral discernment.

I missed the part about any sort of unregulated gambling being involved here.

Was there something I missed about Trump wanting to legalize underground dog fighting and back alley dice games?

Polymarket is regulated under the Commodities Futures Trading Commission at a federal level (with individual states still having the option to regulate it more strictly if they so choose) -- much like what's done with track betting and casinos. There are baseline federal rules, but states can ultimately decide if they want to impose stricter rules for activities withing their jurisdiction.

FireDragon76 · Saturday at 6:50 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
I missed the part about any sort of unregulated gambling being involved here.

Was there something I missed about Trump wanting to legalize underground dog fighting and back alley dice games?

Polymarket is regulated under the Commodities Futures Trading Commission at a federal level (with individual states still having the option to regulate it more strictly if they so choose) -- much like what's done with track betting and casinos. There are baseline federal rules, but states can ultimately decide if they want to impose stricter rules for activities withing their jurisdiction.

States like Nevada, and several others, actually consider Polymarket to be unregulated gambling and are opposed to its expansion.

askesis · Saturday at 6:55 PM

FireDragon76 said:
the house always wins, as they say.

Does the "house" win? I'm not a fan of gambling because I've never been good at it. But is there a "house" in many forms of online gambling? Sites make money off the fee, I guess, but you're basically gambling against everyone else, aren't you? I wonder about the fact you can now gamble on virtually anything, e.g. how many times a commentator says "fumble" during a game. It's really wide-open. If someone has a problem with gambling, everything becomes a temptation.

FireDragon76 · Saturday at 7:06 PM

askesis said:
Does the "house" win? I'm not a fan of gambling because I've never been good at it.

Nobody really is good at gambling, but some people think they are. In a casino, the game with the best odds is Blackjack, and people can learn to read decks (provided the deck isn't too large). But once you earn a reputation for reading decks, you usually get tossed out of a casino and blacklisted. The system is designed to be unfair, that's how the house makes its money.

askesis said:
But is there a "house" in many forms of online gambling? Sites make money off the fee, I guess, but you're basically gambling against everyone else, aren't you? I wonder about the fact you can now gamble on virtually anything, e.g. how many times a commentator says "fumble" during a game. It's really wide-open. If someone has a problem with gambling, everything becomes a temptation.

The bookie or broker is making a commission off bets or charging a fee to use the service.

Alot of the betting that happens on Polymarket isn't even useful prediction for business, the traditional justification for prediction markets, it's just about who will win in a particular sports game, which is sports betting by any other name.

Landon Caeli · Saturday at 7:06 PM

If someone has a problem with gambling, that's their problem.

Personally, I hate both gambling and sports, but if other people like those things, that's their business.

RileyG · Saturday at 7:08 PM

Pommer said:
Human beings are remarkably bad at predicting future events (and outcomes of events) but almost nobody believes that they themselves are remarkably bad at these.
This is the basis of gambling.

Very good point! I never thought of it that way.

RileyG · Saturday at 7:10 PM

Landon Caeli said:
If someone has a problem with gambling, that's their problem.

Personally, I hate both gambling and sports. If other people like those things, that's their business.

It can be an addiction for sure! I remember many years ago my brother would gamble on the internet. Sometimes he would lose A LOT of money.

I’m rather indifferent towards sports.

To each their own!

FireDragon76 · Saturday at 7:15 PM

RileyG said:
It can be an addiction for sure! I remember many years ago my brother would gamble on the internet. Sometimes he would lose A LOT of money.

I’m rather indifferent towards sports.

To each their own!

Problem gambling is more common than most people realize, roughly comparable to alcoholism, it's just people don't talk about it as much because people don't see the larger pattern and context around the behavior that can make it problematic, instead they blame individuals for "lacking responsibility".

My uncle and his ex-wife became involved in problem gambling and it caused alot of grief in the wider family. It just shows you don't have to necessarily manifest a particularly disturbed personality pattern to get into trouble with gambling, if you're surrounded by it in your social circle and it's normalized.

askesis · Saturday at 7:16 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
As long as odds are disclosed, what makes gambling inherently "evil"?

It doesn't have to be inherently evil. If it is exploitative under particular circumstances , e.g., for people who cannot stop, then it is reasonable to try and regulate that. Then again, maybe gambling institutions are exploitative by nature. In that case, it would be inherently evil in the sense of being not good for people.

Landon Caeli · Saturday at 7:18 PM

askesis said:
It doesn't have to be inherently evil. If it is exploitative under particular circumstances , e.g., for people who cannot stop, then it is reasonable to try and regulate that. Then again, maybe gambling institutions are exploitative by nature. In that case, it would be inherently evil in the sense of being not good for people.

But many liberals feel it's okay to decriminalize drugs, why should people care about gambling anymore than drugs?

...They say prohibition doesn't work.

FireDragon76 · Saturday at 7:31 PM

Landon Caeli said:
But many liberals feel it's okay to decriminalize drugs, why should people care about gambling anymore than drugs?

That's a bit of a red herring. Decriminalization isn't about approval of drug use, and isn't the same as deregulation.

The research actually shows that problem gambling is most common among those least likely to identify as "Democrat base", and more likely to occur among lower socioeconomic, working-class groups, people least likely to be politically engaged.

askesis · Saturday at 7:32 PM

FireDragon76 said:
The bookie or broker is making a commission off bets or charging a fee to use the service.

Alot of the betting that happens on Polymarket isn't even useful prediction for business, the traditional justification for prediction markets, it's just about who will win in a particular sports game, which is sports betting by any other name.

I did watch the video, which was helpful. Other than the commission, they can track your betting and place limits if you're winning. But yeah, it's not like Blackjack where you can know limits and possibilities. I don't see how one can get ahead on bets like these, but I don't know much about it.

askesis · Saturday at 7:43 PM

Landon Caeli said:
But many liberals feel it's okay to decriminalize drugs, why should people care about gambling anymore than drugs?

...They say prohibition doesn't work.

Prohibition didn't work. I don't know what "many liberals" feel, but I think we should address addiction as a societal ill that affects all of us. Prisons have their purpose, ideally, but addiction is another thing. I don't think the way to help us as a society get over our addiction to addiction is going to be more prison sentences. We need a different approach.

ThatRobGuy · Saturday at 8:24 PM

askesis said:
It doesn't have to be inherently evil. If it is exploitative under particular circumstances , e.g., for people who cannot stop, then it is reasonable to try and regulate that. Then again, maybe gambling institutions are exploitative by nature. In that case, it would be inherently evil in the sense of being not good for people.

The issue is we can't structure an entire legal framework around what a small percentage of people will succumb to in terms of compulsive behavior.

I would say that cigarettes would be a far bigger offender than gambling. Only a small percentage of people who partake in recreational gambling will develop any sort of addiction to it and experience serious negative effects. Whereas, there's no safe harm-free way to smoke cigs, and you can get those at any grocery store or gas station.

And by all available metrics, the compulsive behavior that negatively impacts the most Americans is inability to control themselves around the dinner table, not the card table. (the obesity and diabetes rates would back up my assertion). We can't crack down on the Cheesecake Factory because 20% of people will not be able to property control themselves around cheesecake.

ThatRobGuy · Saturday at 8:34 PM

FireDragon76 said:
States like Nevada, and several others, actually consider Polymarket to be unregulated gambling and are opposed to its expansion.

Lol, Nevada's intentions in considering it "unregulated" and wanting to fight against it are painfully transparent. They don't care about "some poor addicted guy losing his life savings in Polymarket", they're concerned with "if that poor addicted guy is going to lose his life savings, it should be in our state at our casinos, restaurants, and hotels"

Gambling (and extraneous proximity-adjacent businesses) has long been the cornerstone of Nevada's state revenue and the heart of their tourism revenue.

Of course they'd fight against anything that let's people gamble without having to go to Vegas (and spend money in their state/casinos/hotels/restaurants)

Casino trade groups in Nevada have reliably thrown dark money at Prop battles in other states when legalizing gambling has been on the ballot.

We're talking about the Nevada Resort Association (the "other" NRA) that's the same lobbying arm that's killed efforts to allow Nevada to have a state lottery.

Let that sink in... the state that's become synonymous with gambling, doesn't allow for lottery tickets (because the Casino lobbyists in that state don't want any measure of competition)

FireDragon76 · Saturday at 9:07 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
Lol, Nevada's intentions in considering it "unregulated" and wanting to fight against it are painfully transparent. They don't care about "some poor addicted guy losing his life savings in Polymarket", they're concerned with "if that poor addicted guy is going to lose his life savings, it should be in our state at our casinos, restaurants, and hotels"

Gambling (and extraneous proximity-adjacent businesses) has long been the cornerstone of Nevada's state revenue and the heart of their tourism revenue.

Of course they'd fight against anything that let's people gamble without having to go to Vegas (and spend money in their state/casinos/hotels/restaurants)

Casino trade groups in Nevada have reliably thrown dark money at Prop battles in other states when legalizing gambling has been on the ballot.

We're talking about the Nevada Resort Association (the "other" NRA) that's the same lobbying arm that's killed efforts to allow Nevada to have a state lottery.

Let that sink in... the state that's become synonymous with gambling, doesn't allow for lottery tickets (because the Casino lobbyists in that state don't want any measure of competition)

This argument is just a form of tu quoque and a kind of genetic fallacy.

Gambling in Nevada is strictly regulated and taxed to support the local community. It's not merely going into the hands of the wealthy, it helps support social services within the state and counties.

ThatRobGuy said:
The issue is we can't structure an entire legal framework around what a small percentage of people will succumb to in terms of compulsive behavior.

I would say that cigarettes would be a far bigger offender than gambling. Only a small percentage of people who partake in recreational gambling will develop any sort of addiction to it and experience serious negative effects. Whereas, there's no safe harm-free way to smoke cigs, and you can get those at any grocery store or gas station.

And by all available metrics, the compulsive behavior that negatively impacts the most Americans is inability to control themselves around the dinner table, not the card table. (the obesity and diabetes rates would back up my assertion). We can't crack down on the Cheesecake Factory because 20% of people will not be able to property control themselves around cheesecake.

7-8 percent of Americans report having gambling problems in the past year, with 3 percent of Americans having severely addictive behavior. That's not insignificant. It's comparable to alcoholism as a social problem right now. The World health Organization estimates that for every problem gambler, about a half a dozen peoples' lives are negatively effected by gambling due to the effects problem gambling has on families, communities and relationships.

The effects of the food environment are real, but they are often much more long-term and diffuse problems, but unregulated gambling can create much more immediate social harms, especially to children and families. Food, unlike gambling, is also necessary to sustain life, and even the worst junk food contains at least some calories, so it makes the question of whether or not we should regulate food, and if so, how much, to be more complicated.

askesis · Saturday at 9:19 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
The issue is we can't structure an entire legal framework around what a small percentage of people will succumb to in terms of compulsive behavior.

Is it small? I don't know.

ThatRobGuy said:
I would say that cigarettes would be a far bigger offender than gambling. Only a small percentage of people who partake in recreational gambling will develop any sort of addiction to it and experience serious negative effects. Whereas, there's no safe harm-free way to smoke cigs, and you can get those at any grocery store or gas station.

They are quite regulated, though. Remember when everybody smoked everywhere? I bought cigarettes at 16 and no one batted an eye.

ThatRobGuy said:
And by all available metrics, the compulsive behavior that negatively impacts the most Americans is inability to control themselves around the dinner table, not the card table. (the obesity and diabetes rates would back up my assertion). We can't crack down on the Cheesecake Factory because 20% of people will not be able to property control themselves around cheesecake.

I agree we cannot legislate a good askesis. But I don't think the answer to every vice is the same. Gambling has it's own nature (not necessarily inherent), and if there are good ways to avoid the compulsion in a way that helps society as a whole, then I'm for it.

ThatRobGuy · Sunday at 9:46 AM

FireDragon76 said:
This argument is just a form of tu quoque and a kind of genetic fallacy.

Gambling in Nevada is strictly regulated and taxed to support the local community. It's not merely going into the hands of the wealthy, it helps support social services within the state and counties.

That's irrelevant... as it would still ascribe bad intent to the state of Nevada.

"We're going to allow, and tax this thing that we know causes harm, because we'll use some of that tax money for some good stuff" is the same argument that could be made for legalizing any number of harmful things.

FireDragon76 said:
7-8 percent of Americans report having gambling problems in the past year, with 3 percent of Americans having severely addictive behavior. That's not insignificant. It's comparable to alcoholism as a social problem right now.

The significance isn't relevant to the regulatory approach or prescription in this instance.

If it was, then they would be just looking to ban gambling outright.

But they're not, Nevada is just trying to keep the cash windfall and proceeds in the hands of the select few entities that currently control it.

FireDragon76 · Sunday at 11:08 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
That's irrelevant... as it would still ascribe bad intent to the state of Nevada.

"We're going to allow, and tax this thing that we know causes harm, because we'll use some of that tax money for some good stuff" is the same argument that could be made for legalizing any number of harmful things.

That's a matter of prudential judgement, not necessarily moral approval.

ThatRobGuy said:
The significance isn't relevant to the regulatory approach or prescription in this instance.

If it was, then they would be just looking to ban gambling outright.

But they're not, Nevada is just trying to keep the cash windfall and proceeds in the hands of the select few entities that currently control it.

That's a cynical judgement that doesn't address the social dimension of regulation. The state, representing the public interest, is allowed to a portion of the procedes from gambling revenue due to the nature of the public interest in regulating an activity that can cause demonstrable public harms. This is about real public policy, not just protectionism.

Say it aint so · Sunday at 11:57 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
For it to be rank hypocrisy, it would have to be something that the voter bloc was still actively against very recently and suddenly doing a 180 on it.

Not at all. I am talking about the hypocrisy of those like minded entities you named as in the Falwell, Dobson, Graham types. I realize some of them are not around to take exception to the Trump family foray into gambling, but those who do openly support him are absolutely silent come the push for more unregulated gambling into the US. It appears for them power trumps aspects of morality for them.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Trump administration pushing aggressive expansion of sports betting

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Average Human

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Average Human

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads