But I do agree with increasing the friction involved in signing up and depositing money.
It should not be possible to 1) sign up for kalshi, 2) complete identity verification, AND 3) deposit and place a $2000 real money bet --- within 5 minutes of downloading the app.
It's just way too damn easy. Let's at least make people wait 24 hours before placing their first bet... or something.
And stop allowing deposits with credit cards. This is most important.
The other 80% probably aren't addicts. They're people who like placing a fun $20 now and then. Which is fine. But let's not accidentally turn them into addicts by gamifying every aspect of betting. It shouldn't be so easy. And it shouldn't feel like I'm playing a video game.
And we really don't need push notifications from Kalshi reminding us to place bets every single day. (Not an exaggeration, I'm currently getting daily push notifications)
Why are you even watching sports? It’s full of gambling , weed and porn ads.
A degrading experience.
You forgot to include fast food ads, a mainstay of sports advertising!
Otherwise, I totally agree.
https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/options/articles/donald-tr...
This is basically Suharto level of corruption.
It's crazy how dramatic the shift has been.
Follow the money. It didn't happen by accident, it was a well orchestrated campaign.
It’s sad and worse than any headline is saying right now.
But also, this shouldn't be allowed in any major sport wife they use any kind of public funds.
Does it just mean that the NBA will accept sponsorship money from these sites and how does that even work, since typically sponsorships want exclusivity?
Now, just 5 years later I squarely believe nobody should be touching this stuff, it's basically worse than Blackjack or Craps in every way.
Never thought I would see myself aligning with the more "Puritan/Christian" values.
I guess my q is this a generation gap? are we too old so we dislike it?
Funny thing is that it actually is a turbocharged version of other forms of lottery (see the "makers" vs. "takers" part).
* any sort of advertising should be banned * it should be regulated so that excluding yourself actually works and is easy to do
Seeing 'official prediction market partner' on the news is something else <barf>
I think this position is fundamentally incorrect. Banning gambling reduces the volume of money in gambling, making it hard to make big bets. You will never stop all gambling, but you can reduce how many people ruin their life with it.
Know that these companies internally have models to predict how profitable you will be as a customer, so that they can best nudge those customers who are likely to be profitable.
This model is identical to if you trained a model explicitly to find problem gamblers. They are purposely building systems to find and exploit problem gamblers.
Because that is what the industry does. It finds and milks addicts. It is impossible for a for profit company to exist in this space and not somehow optimize towards finding and exploiting addicts. It's just more profitable. The people who drop a few hundred on a few hands of blackjack once a year cannot sustain an industry.
Extracting all possible wealth from 20% of the significant fraction of the population that plays has enormous negative consequences for all of society.
The only reason you don't ban gambling outright is that it's just too easy and straightforward to run an underground book, so it's a trivial market for organized crime to own. And that isn't good.
So you should have a state run institution that exists entirely to just barely serve the literal addicts, does absolutely nothing with the "income" (preferably just pays it all out, zero sum), and is rather unattractive to people who haven't gambled before. You make betting as boring as possible.
Those push notifications are tuned to trigger someone who might become a problem gambler. They are actively trying to get you addicted.
If anything they should just ban advertising. Simple, worked for smoking for the most part, and we have precedent as it's harmful. Why does every sporting event have so many ads and sponsorships by these betting companies.
The worst thing about these sites is that they're necessarily net negative. If you win regularly, you'll be kicked off these platforms. They only want dumb money. True prediction markets are different since they're don't market makers and just enforce the contracts and there are people on each side. But the whole draft-kings type gambling markets are just awful
If you want to add friction, just make sports betting IRL.
Also ban any gambling advertising.
Bit of a tangent from your comment but I heard the argument once that, 'well people who are already addicted would find a way to do it illegally, at least doing it this way makes it legal and protects them from people like the mafia' to which I agree but it also makes it easier for people who aren't already addicted to become addicted with how often it's advertised. It's like saying 'well listen, those kids were going to see others smoking cigarettes so instead of getting ripped off buying cigarettes from older kids who would mark it up, we started offering safe cigarettes at the school. They don't have to smoke them but at least when they do they'll be smoking safely.'
johsole•1h ago
freedomben•1h ago
Necessary disclaimer since people will try to assume my position through my analysis: I don't like sports gambling, have never done it, and I hate that the ads have taken over.
lotsofpulp•1h ago
jerf•27m ago
It is true that, abstractly, this is a bad idea in the long run for many reasons. However, it's a good idea in the short term. It's a really good idea in the short term, at least from a superficial analysis. And we can expect that someone is going to do that superficial analysis. It only takes one in the entire industry.
A simple glance at history in this space says that the odds that someone is going to do this are for all practical purposes 1. The only question is whether it is already happening, and with high likelihood the correct question is how much it is already happening. It always starts small and they get bolder and bolder. None of this is subtle. None of this requires some sort of careful read of history carefully parsing out a tiny hint here and a whiff of a suggestion there. It's the completely obvious and repeatable strange attractor for gambling at this scale. As is the fact this will eventually blow up in some sort of scandal, after which it will end up heavily regulated again, until another generation or two goes by and forgets why gambling was fenced off.
Most of the cycle has happened once already within my personal lifetime. Major League Baseball had a pretty bad blowup in the late 1980s. Although as with some other vices, the fact that it is sitting there, in your pocket all the time, hooked up to Skinner-box mechanics in real time, is a new twist.
For bonus points society can also get to rediscover why simply banning it has never been all that successful either. Fencing it off seems to be the stable outcome that minimizes damage.
In the meantime the name of the game is to stay clear of the blast radius, and if you are a pro-social type, to try to figure out how to help the people who will get badly, badly hurt in the meantime until society puts the pieces together again.
retsibsi•4m ago
monster_truck•1h ago
criddell•1h ago
lp0_on_fire•49m ago
AndrewStephens•51m ago
Minus several decades in rare cases but it’s going to be increasingly common.
Gambling always brings corruption. With on-premise casino games this is limited to inside of a single building owned by people who have a vested interest in keeping things looking honest.
With sports betting, there are huge incentives to collude or even act alone which are very hard to distinguish from legitimate play.
Internationally, horse racing, cricket, rugby, and (oh boy) soccer continue to have huge problems.
mrguyorama•17m ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sox_Scandal
There's a reason why we didn't do things we are currently doing, and it had nothing to do with "technology". We've been here before.